Modern marxism phylosophy of science

Борис Ихлов

MODERN MARXISM. PART II

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Short variant

BORIS IKHLOV

Perm, 2021

ББК 63.3(2)
УДК 94 (47).08
И-95

Boris Ikhlov is a politician, Marxist, secretary of the executive committee of the Russian political association Rabochy, member of the trade union committee of the Perm workers' trade union Protection, Employment, Legality. Theoretical physicist (field of research – gravity, cosmology, biophysics), journalist. In 1988, he was persecuted by the KGB, and the persecution continued after 1991.

B. L. Ikhlov. Modern Marxism.
A4 format.
The edition is 500 copies.

ISBN 978-56046162-6-0

Content
Anthropic principle……………………………………………………………………………………4
On the interrelations between mathematics, physics and philosophy………………………………..13
What is history? From the point of view if physicist…………………………………………………19
On the methodology of natural science. Neopositivism………………………………………………39
Historiosophy and postnewpositivism…………………………………………………………………54
Determinism and freedom..…………………………………………………………………………….71
Crises in physics……………………………………………………………………………………….80
Life in the universe…………………………………………………………………………………….94
To physics paradigm……………………………………………………………………………………98
Strategy in gerontology………………………………………………………………………………..102

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

If man is the crown of nature, it is a horror.
Daniel Harms

The geocentric system of the world originated in Ancient Greece in the works of Anaximander and Aristotle, it became the basis of ancient and medieval astronomy and cosmology.
Aristotle's proofs: The Earth is a heavy body, the natural place for heavy bodies is the center of the universe; as experience shows, all heavy bodies fall vertically, and since they move towards the center of the world, therefore, the Earth is in the center. Second, the orbital motion of the Earth, which was assumed by the Philolaus (representative of the Pythagorean school), should lead to a parallactic shift of the stars, but this shift is not observed.
Since the heliocentric hypothesis opposed geocentrism it provoked a sharp reaction from representatives of religious philosophy: stoic Cleanthes called for Aristarchus to be brought to justice for moving the "Hearth of Peace" (the Earth).
Cosmocentrism also rejected geocentrism, but existed as a direction of ancient philosophy, Aristotle adhered to cosmocentrism at the same time, besides him – Democritus and Plato.

In the Middle Ages, geocentrism was adopted by theologians, because it corresponded to the Bible. It is argued that the Bible cannot be taken literally, but in this case it can be understood in any way.
According to the cosmological principle of Aristarchus of Samos-Copernicus, the Earth is not a privileged, undifferentiated planet among others orbiting the Sun. Accordingly, the heliocentric system of the world caused the reaction of the Inquisition.
Theocentrism became widespread, which placed God at the center of the world as the absolute, perfect, highest being, the source of all life and all good. Theocentrism considered the worship of God and service of God to be the basis of morality, and imitation and likeness to God to be the highest goal of man (see [1]).

In modern times, philosophy has formulated the principle of mediocrity, which states that the Earth and humanity are not something highlighted in the Universe, there are or may be a large number of planets and civilizations. It is sometimes incorrectly claimed that this principle is a generalization of the Copernican principle.
The idea of a plurality of inhabited worlds has been suggested in all ages, including Engels, so it makes no sense to formulate this idea as a principle.

In addition, the Solar System is quite specific - its orbit in the Galaxy is located on the corotational circle, where the period of rotation of the star around the Galactic core coincides with the period of rotation of the spiral sleeves - places of active star formation. Therefore, the Sun (unlike most stars in the Galaxy) very rarely passes through sleeves, where there are likely close supernova outbreaks that could destroy life on Earth.
The Earth is also specific enough to create life similar to Earth life, one needs a small eccentricity of the planet's orbit, a special chemical composition of the stars, and many other conditions.
Accordingly, as the opposite extreme, and also in view of the Fermi paradox, the hypothesis of a unique Earth arose (see, for example, [2]).

Characteristics of the anthropic principle

The anthropic principle is that "We see the universe as such because only in such a universe an observer, a human being, could have arisen." This principle was proposed to explain "from a scientific point of view" why a number of non-trivial relations between fundamental physical parameters necessary for the existence of intelligent life exists in the observable Universe.

This formulation is quite abstract. Therefore, it breaks down into two components: in the literal sense, it is meaningless and illogical (the cause is replaced by the effect): the meat is delicious because I want to eat, the trees are green because I like it, if I were a tree, the wind would blow because the trees are swaying. In a word, "what is honey for in the world? For me to eat it." Accordingly, the anthropic principle in this sense should be called more appropriately: the Winnie Pooh principle.
On the other hand, it is a tautology: "The universe is like this because I see it like this." And even in tautology, the cause is replaced by the effect, the correct tautology: "I see the universe this way because it is this way". Hence cubism. Avangarde and postmodern in physics.

The physicist Grib writes frankly: "But then, as if someone's "invisible hand" moved the numbers and the resonance with the formation of oxygen with the disappearance of carbon was forbidden." And further: "Here we see a revival of the biblical anthropocentric idea of creation. The universe is built on the principle of design-an architectural project... the laws of physics... are programs..." ([3]).

Moreover, Grib, a specialist in quantum field theory, is well aware that the world, in principle, can not be any program.
But if nature is so arranged that the resonance with the disappearance of carbon is forbidden, why do you need to invent an additional entity, a god who "moved" the numbers?
And there is no anthropocentrism in the Bible, there is theocentrism in the Biible, a God, God is the focus, not man. The World Flood is a remarkable example of anti-anthropocentrism. The archangel or the devil has power over a person – this is also anti-anthropocentrism.

According to the Bible, God gives man dominion over fish, cattle, reptiles, etc., but not over the planet or the universe. Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that God gave man dominion over the Moon, the Sun, or the constellations.
Modern physics is thoroughly anti-anthropocentric, starting with tectonic shifts, the cooling of the Earth's core and the transformation of the Sun into a red giant, continuing with the collision with the Andromeda nebula and ending with the heat death of the Universe (Brian Green). Not to mention the depletion of the planet's hydrocarbons over the next 200 years, without any options.

Astronomer Oleg Verhodanov points out that dark matter is necessary from the very beginning of the universe, if there are no dark matter particles, one can’t “collect” in the primary plasma enough large inhomogeneities, dark matter particles collect protons around themselves. Dark matter is also necessary to collect gas into stars, and there is no fine tuning. However, Verkhodanov not associate this necessity with the anthropic principle and emphasizes that the anthropic principle doesn't work.
Nevertheless, Lee Smolin and Linde are tried to be used the anthropic principle as one of the physical axioms.

Verkhodanov argues that the anthropic principle died with the Linde’ theory of inflation. Linde himself doesn't think so. "Is it possible, - he says in his lectures, - that consciousness, like space-time, has its own internal degrees of freedom, the neglect of which leads to a fundamentally incomplete description of the universe? What if our sensations are just as real (or perhaps even more real) than material objects?»

That is. Linde does not put forward anything new, he only repeats the old, already dead primitive idealism of Plato, Hegel, Joseph Dietzgen. It remains only to make a direct experiment, how the human will rejects the perihelion of Mercury, how a close look can improve the quality of metal melting, to investigate the radiation of a soul separate from the human body, etc.
Whether someone obliged Linde to take a feasible part in the ideological struggle on the side of the world bourgeoisie, whether he was active in the heart's desire, whether age-related changes affected his intelligence, or whether these changes are an integral part of the decline in the intellectual qualification around the world – it remains unknown.

The weak anthropic principle was formulated in 1955 by A. L. Zelmanov and by G. M. Idlis in 1957 at the All-Union Conference on Problems of Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology: "We observe not an arbitrary region of the Universe, but one whose special structure made it suitable for the emergence and development of life".
In 1961, the same idea was published by R. Dicke. The term "anthropic principle" was proposed in 1973 by B. Carter.

L. B. Okun clarifies: “... the weak anthropic principle comes from the idea of an ensemble containing an infinitely large number of universes". This means that there are different values of the world constants in the Universe, but the observation of some of their values has more high probability, because in the regions where the values take these meanings, the probability of a creation of observer is higher. In other words, the values of the world constants that are sharply different from our own are not observed, because where they are, there are no observers”.

It's meaningless. From the condition of the absence of observers, it cannot be deduced that there are no such universes, otherwise the laws of nature must be obliged to depend on the point of view of observers.

A strong anthropic principle: The universe must have properties that allow intelligent life to develop. The strong anthropic principle (the anthropic principle of participation) was formulated in 1983 by D. Wheeler: "Observers are necessary for finding the Universe of being" (Wikipedia).

Due to its abstractness, this formulation implicitly includes or may include four statements:
1) god created the universe in such a way and that he subtly adjusted the world constants with such values that a person appeared in it, other Universes disappeared (god destroyed them, they died in the course of natural selection, etc.).);
2) the laws of the Universe are such that man existed in it;
3) there is at least one in a number of existing universes in which a person can exist ;
4) the laws of nature are such that in the course of nature development, a person arises.

The content of the first statement is not related to science, but to a socio-psychological deviation, it is exhausted by the fact that capital requires physicists to fight Marxism in any form, including under the slogan of Thomas Aquinas, that science becomes the servant of religion.

The second statement echoes hylozoism, finalism and reductionism, it implies that the Universe is specially designed for the emergence of man, elementary particles knew about man in advance and chose what mass to possess, what coupling constants to assign, so that an observer could appear in the universe. Or God.

But the second statement is based on von Neumann's subjectively idealistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which includes the observer among the postulates of quantum mechanics, which, of course, is incorrect and somehow leads to the recognition of the existence of God.

The third statement is meaningless, because it is unprovable. S. Weinberg is of the same opinion.
The fourth statement is the only one that can be related to science.

L. B. Okun regards both anthropic principles as speculative.
According to Alex Vilenkin, " the anthropic explanation of fine tuning is unscientific... the anthropic principle can only serve to explain what we already know. It never predicts anything, and therefore cannot be checked".
David Gross argues that the anthropic principle only demonstrates our inability to answer complex questions.

Australian philosopher Warwick Fox considers as tautology the justification of anthropocentrism to be that man is the center of being because only he can make judgments about the world. In his opinion, anthropocentrism is the desire of man to dominate nature. The same position is shared by Verkhodanov.
American professor Lynn White identifies the Judeo-Christian tradition for the emergence of anthropocentrism, according to which everything is created for a person whom God has chosen to rule the earth (Wikipedia).
Many researches point to this tradition, but religions do not contain anthropocentrism.

Linde formulates both anthropic principles differently, without focusing on the "observer»:
"The weak anthropic principle simply says that if the universe consists of parts with different properties, then we shall live where our life is possible... The strong anthropic principle states that the universe should have been created in such a way that our existence was possible in it. At first glance, this statement cannot be true, because humanity, which emerged 1010 years after the establishment of the basic properties of our universe, could not in any way affect its structure and the properties of elementary particles in it."
Who goes to the forest, who goes for firewood.

First, it is true that a person cannot exist inside the stars, so in Linde's formulation, the weak principle is meaningless.
Secondly, Linde contradicts himself, because according to his assumption, thoughts are even more real than reality. In addition, the inability of a person to influence the properties of elementary particles has no connection with the initial design of the Universe "for a person".

Third, the strong principle in Linde's formulation could be relevant to science if there were not a combination of "was created".
Linde argues that " most of the problems associated with the anthropic principle were solved shortly after the creation of inflationary cosmology". But his model does not solve any "problems", Linde only complements the previous content of the principle, indicating that in other exponentially large parts of the universe, where the masses of elementary particles are different, "life of our type will be impossible".

If his theory is correct, Linde argues , then " physics alone is not capable of providing a complete explanation of all the properties of our part of the universe. The same physical theory can describe different regions of the universe with completely different properties. According to this scenario, we live in a four-dimensional region of the universe with our physical laws, not because regions of other dimensions or with other laws are impossible or unlikely, but simply because life like ours in them is impossible. Hence follows a simple proof of the weak anthropic principle, not subject to the usual objections to it. There is no any need for some super-natural cause that creates our universe with parameters specially selected for the possibility of our existence. The inflationary universe itself, without any external intervention, creates exponentially large regions with all possible laws of physics. And we should no longer be surprised that conditions suitable for our existence are realized on such a large scale - even if they were initially established only in our neighborhood, inflation establishes them in the entire observable part of the universe."

Thus Linde brought nothing new to the subject of the anthropic principle. The world constants are also not supernatural. The anthropic principle states that the global constants are in order to make it possible for intelligent life. Linde's theory states that inflation is in order for intelligent life to become possible.
Then Linde goes on to include the observer in the principle, wanting "to use this theory to strengthen the anthropic principle by assuming that all fundamental constants take on different values in different quantum states of the universe."

But Linde doesn't stop halfway.
"The multi-world provides a solid formal basis for the further development (!!! B. I.) of the anthropic principle. But the main reason for the introduction of this structure is not the anthropic principle at all. As already mentioned, we need to know what appears first in the formation of the universe - the universe itself or the laws governing it... We can assume that there is only one possible law that exists in some way even before the universe, but this would be something like a democratic election with one candidate on the ballot. Perhaps the best option is to consider all possible combinations of universes, the laws that describe them, and the observers who inhabit them. Having a choice among the different universes in the multi-world structure, we can continue, discarding those where our life would be impossible."

Let’s left aside that Linde separates laws of the Universe from the Universe, that they still may appear before the Universe, i.e. from God, and that the bourgeois ideology of pluralism gained their status in physics. Everyone thinks about a cutlet, and this is an ontological principle!
However, if string theory tries to discard unnecessary methods of compactification using the anthropic principle, Linde tries to discard entire Universes. Flag in hand!

Linde goes on to ask why mathematics is effective. Question of bottomless depth. And he comes to a stunning conclusion: "... within the framework of the concept of the multiworld, you can imagine all possible universes with all possible laws of physics and mathematics. We can only live in those of them in which mathematics is sufficiently effective."
That is: in fact, the anthropic principle is just a kind of dress-code, a label indicating that the physicist belongs to the mainstream of the modern dominant ideology.

It is not chaos in the nature, it is chaos in your pluralistic theories that cut off from reality, it's the chaos in your heads.

It is characteristic - let us note this - that the anthropic principle was first formulated in the USSR, which for unknown reasons (in view of the consensus) is considered to be socialist. It was during the perestroika period, in 1989, that the international seminar "The Anthropic Principle in the structure of the Scientific Picture of the World: History and Modernity" was held in the USSR.

Fundamentals of the anthropic principle

It is obvious that the anthropic principle is teleological, in the spirit of Socrates, Aristotle, representatives of patristics (philosophy and theology of the "church fathers"), Athenagoras, Tatian, Tertullian, as well as the scholastics: it rains because people need a harvest. I.e., the world is attributed to non-natural, external goals.

It is also obvious that the basis of the anthropic principle is anthropocentrism. This is a philosophically idealistic view, according to which man is the center of the universe and the goal of all events taking place in the world. It emerged in the Renaissance in opposition to theocentrism, although its origins can be found in ancient philosophy. Thus, Protagoras argued that "man is the measure of all things" (see also [4]).

Anthropocentrism, which places man at the center of the universe, rejects both cosmocentrism with the idea of man as a "microcosm" and the supreme creator. Man is autonomous, is not the image and likeness of God, he has neither the original sin nor the seven deadly sins (as Charles de Coster expressed in The “Legend of Til Ulenspiegel”).
In the Marxist approach, the contours of anthropocentrism are outlined by P. P. Gaidenko.
"In the XV century, J. Manetti, - Gaidenko points out, - in his treatise On the Dignity and Superiority of man, characterizes man as a "mortal God", "heavenly and divine animal", "more divine than humana living being." In the works of the head of the Academy of Plato in Florence, Marsilino Ficino (1433-1499), in the" Speech on the Dignity of Man " by J. Pico della Mirandola, man appears as a creator of himself, the cult of human creativity arises. “At the same time, the cult of genius, of human exclusivity in general, often turns into extreme individualism and the absolutization of the aesthetic approach to man - up to immoralism... In the era of the Reformation and especially the Counter-Reformation, Renaissance anthropocentrism takes on new forms.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, subjectivism, characteristic of Modern European philosophy, arose – as the requirement to proceed in philosophy and science from the subject, from the “I” (the Cartesian cogito ergo sum as the principle of subjective certainty). "Not just the principle of thinking as such, but the subjectively experienced act of thinking, from which it is impossible to separate the thinker, was laid by R. Descartes in the foundation of the new philosophy. However, in Cartesianism, self-consciousness as the beginning of philosophy has not yet acquired full autonomy: the truth of this principle is guaranteed in Descartes by the existence of God - the source and the basis of the objective significance of all knowledge. The transformation of the subject, the “I”, into an autonomous principle occurred in the 18th century thanks to I. Kant ... it is the subject-logical, ethical, aesthetic - that constitutes the empirical world.

At the thought of I. G. Fichte the autonomy of the self-creating, self-generatingth “I” become the Central base of the philosophical system... In the 19th and 20th centuries, with the deepening of the secularization anthropocentrism takes the form of open rebellion... For Feuerbach's atheistic humanism, the highest thing in philosophy is man, whose essence he sees, however, not in a separate individual, but in a collective, generic being, and therefore justifies altruistic morality. Soon, however, M. Stirner, and then F. Nietzsche's cancel this morality. Stirner ("The One and his property", 1844) proclaims the thesis: "Ego mihi Deus" – "I am my own God", and Nietzsche creates ... the image of a superman - a man-god, selfish and aggressive" [5].
Anthropocentrism was held by Hegel, in the early twentieth century – the founder of the philosophy of anthropology Scheler, in modern times – Kh. Wolf.

In recent history, anthropocentrism has lost its revivalist opposition. The ideas of anthropocentrism were taken up by Teilhard de Chardin and E. Leroy.
Teilhard de Chardin tried to link the dogmas of Catholicism with the theory of evolution, pointing out the shortcomings of Thomism - the dynamics of creation, the sin-fall and redemption, the concern for the salvation of the individual subject, not the collective. Teilhard de Chardin identifies three successive, qualitatively different stages of evolution: "pre-life" (lithosphere)," life "(biosphere) and" human phenomenon " (noosphere).

Evolution, in his opinion, did not end with man as an individual. The next step, in addition to the self-concentration of the noosphere, is to attach it to another thought center, a superintelligent one, the degree of development of which no longer needs a material carrier and belongs entirely to the sphere of the Spirit. Graphically the evolutionary process he depicts as the cone of space-time, which is the multiplicity and chaos, and on top of the highest pole of evolution, the last point of the enterprises in a differentiated unity, "the Omega point", "centre shining in the centre of the system of centers."

Teilhard de Chardin did not bring anything new to anthropocentrism, he repeated the Neoplatonists, Saccas, Plotinus, etc., who believed in the existence of a "transcendent original", preached the doctrine of cosmic hierarchies (The One-the World mind - the World soul), declared that the world ("cosmos») is the" descent of the one "(emanation), they inculcated distrust of matter and material forms as "prisons of the soul", called for the "ascent of the soul to its source" through the recognition of metempsychosis, as well as the practice of theurgy, ecstasy, etc.
The philosopher V. V. Orlov, dissociating himself from Teilhard not Chardin, declared man the highest point of the development of the universe.

The topic of anthropocentrism is developed by Russian social scientists, V. I. Samokhvalova, L. I. A. D. Ursula, V. M. Gusev, V. V. Dezhkin, V. A. Kobylyansky, and others. However, it does not make sense to consider these developments, at least for two reasons: 1) in view of the obvious social bias of Russian social scientists, 2) in view of the total reduction of the scientific qualification in Russia. Modern philosophical texts, and not only in Russia, increasingly resemble explanations of leader of the orchestra during the pauses in the “Extraordinary Concert” of Sergei Obraztsov: "The finale is the apotheosis, which ends with the author's frank ultima-credo, expressed subtly and gently by the moncanto pianissimo sussurando of the water-tank instrument»: https://vk.com/video40418573_168334580

For example, Samokhvalova attributes to anthropocentrism the statement of Cicero, "who was greatly influenced by the Roman Stoics:" Everything in this world that people use is created and prepared for them " [6].
But this is a utilitarian, elitist, now – bourgeois, but not an anthropocentric point of view.

Anthropocentrism found its expression in the teachings of V. I. Vernadsky.
Noosphere according to Vernadsky, is the "sphere of reason", the sphere of interaction between society and nature, within which rational human activity becomes the determining factor of development, presumably new, higher stage of evolution of the biosphere, the formation of which is associated with the development of society, that has a profound impact on natural processes.

That is, the noosphere does not exist at the moment, because geological and climatic processes are dominant, independent of the technical level of society, moreover, the pollution of the surrounding atmosphere can hardly be called the highest stage.
In addition, among conditions for the presence of the noosphere Vernadsky called the absence of wars, separation from politics, increasing the well-being of the masses, etc., which is not observed, for example, every year 40 million people die from hunger in the world.

However, Vernadsky put a mystical meaning into his concept. He argued that "there is a great geological, perhaps cosmic force in the biosphere, the planetary action of which is usually not taken into account in the ideas of the cosmos."… This force is the mind of man, his aspiring and organized will as a social being.
"The American environmental historian D. R. Wiener calls the doctrine of the noosphere" a utopian and scientifically untenable idea " [7].

Anthropocentrism exalts certain aspects of the development of nature, and this exaltation
1) discards the phenomenon of the diversity of life. The possibility of a variety of life forms in the universe is based on a) the nonlinearity of biological evolution, b) the already available data on the possibility of non-carbon life, c) the already available data on the expansion of the spectrum of life conditions to the extreme .

2) Separates man from the class dynamics of society, the sociological anthropocentrism of Herbert Spencer and Max Weber believes that the mass of the sum is the sum of the masses, the properties of society are the sum of the properties of individuals, thus, sociological anthropocentrism ignores the new systemic quality that arises in man only in society, as Marx noted in the thesis about Feuerbach: the individual is a concrete set of social relations.

Modern sociology supposedly solves the dilemma of anthropocentrism and sociocentrism through terminology. Thus, P. Bourdieu argues that the social environment generates a certain habitus - a system of "acquired predispositions" that are used by individuals as initial attitudes that generate specific social practices of individuals. Habitus is declared an incorporated (legal) sociality.
It is obvious that "legal sociality" is an empty, meaningless abstraction, and its use has only one purpose - to obscure a thesis similar in form to Marx's thesis about Feuerbach. On the other hand, the attitudes are separated from the personality, they act mechanically, in addition to the will and consciousness in general.

In different terms, but the same empty abstraction is offered by the structuralist Roland Barthes.
Barth's "writing" is an ideological grid defined in language, which a particular group, class, social institution, etc. places between the individual and reality, forcing him to think in certain categories, to notice and evaluate only those aspects of reality that this grid recognizes as significant. It would be understandable if Barth, along with ideology, added to the "grid" the practical aspect of the life of political parties, the entire spectrum of which the ruling class of the bourgeoisie designed as a protective buffer between themselves and the masses. But Bart also referred to literature, which does not separate, but connects, as "writing". Which is partly true if one means the" creativity " of Alexievich, Ulitskaya, Prilepin, Marinina, Akunin, Rubalskaya, Dontsova, etc., as well as modern cinema.

Accordingly, society, nature, for Barth – is not a material world with its laws, but only a text, a breeding ground for a creature that is not amenable to analysis, or even to any measurement. The relationship between the individual and society, according to Barth, is "the dissolution of the author in the text." That is, the solution of the problem by the death of the author.
This is how sociological postmodernism, represented, for example, by M. Foucault, eliminates the problem of the relationship between the individual and society - with the help of an unusually humanistic idea of "the death of the subject".
"The origins of the attitude to the' death of the subject 'are found in structuralism, which marked the shift of philosophical interest from the atomic to the structural ... the rejection of the pathos of the personal principle in favor of a free, machine, 'schizoid' game of meanings "[8].
In a word, "continuo-transcendental apperception in the hermeneutically expressed archetype of the medieval society of sparrows".

3) This exaltation separates man from the actual evolution of the human species [9].
Alekseyev even writes that humanity can and should be opposed to all other matter [10].

Instead, anthropocentrism offers a fantastic, mystic, non-existent gluing:
1) between man and the planet, man and the cosmos,
2) between the history of mankind and the history of the universe.

Marxism and the Anthropic principle

The anthropic principle states that if the numerical values of many dimensionless (independent of the system of units) fundamental physical parameters, such as the mass ratios of elementary particles, the dimensionless constants of fundamental interactions differed from their observed values by only a small amount, intelligent (rather highly organized) life could not be formed.

As a rule, it is indicated that with the dimension of space R4, the motion would be unstable, closed trajectories of planets would be impossible, if the mass of the electron was 3-4 times greater, hydrogen would only exist for a few days, and the constants of the fundamental interactions cannot deviate from their values.
To answer the question "why", modern physicists prefer not to investigate the fact within the framework of physics, but to involve the anthropic principle, which in fact means not anthropocentrism, but theocentrism. For the question "why" is not the answer, the answer is contained in the question "by whom", who varied or knew in advance the value of the world constants.

This statement is false, because there is no talking of intelligent life, but only of life in general.
In addition, the statement does not make sense in two plans: a) mankind does not know life in another form, the level of knowledge is still too small, so one has no definition of either life or intelligent life; b) no research was made about possibility of life when world constants differ for a large quantity, can atom like hydrogen or much different from hydrogen exist, but also as a complex, with much smaller or much greater mass of an electron, rather than the difference of the masses of the neuron and of the proton?

Question: does the Moon exist if the mouse is not looking at it?
Question: did man arise in the course of the evolution of nature, or did he always exist?
Did the laws of quantum mechanics work in the absence of an observer, in the Planck Universe, or in the era of baryogenesis?
It is obvious that if we accept the scientific data of the origin of man, for socially engaged scientists there is only one way out: to recognize God as an observer. It is obvious that the formulation of the anthropic principle is associated with a subjectively idealistic, solipsistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, i.e., with a general world trend.

Moreover, the anthropic principle clearly contradicts the fact that man is in no way able to influence the evolution of the Universe, in addition, living matter is a vanishingly small part of the Universe, moreover, all existing cosmological theories speak of the mandatory death of life in the Universe, implicitly pushing to the idea that one can only hope for God.

Notice how Friedrich Engels formulated the anthropic principle in his book "Dialectics of nature": nature evolves from lower to higher, from simple to complex, chemical form of matter motion is occurring from the physical forms of matter in motion , biological form is occurring form of the chemical form, from biological – social. Thus, in Marxism, life in the universe arises with natural necessity, as regularity.

Similarly, K. Huseykhanov begins the formulation of the anthropic principle: "The essence of the anthropic cosmological principle is that life is an integral part of the universe, a natural consequence of its evolution." But he immediately admits that a subtle adjustment of the world constants was made by someone for the purpose of creating a person.

Engels ' formulation does not mean that man is the highest point of development, it does not mean that the Universe is specially adapted for man.
This means that the regularity by which intelligent life arises does not lie in physical laws, but in biological laws; the regularity of the origin of life is not reduced to physical laws, it follows from the laws of chemistry.

If life dies on Earth, Engels argues, it will necessarily arise at another point in the universe. In the translation to the modern level of knowledge – in new Universes in M-theory or in nascent Universes in the theory of the Starobinsky - Linde multiverse.

Two final points.

1) In reality, the anthropic principle is not anthropic, if we discard the political component, it is only an attempt to use in physical models the fact that the laws and the content of the universe are such that chemical elements arise as a result and DNA can be constructed from them.

But this is only the first step. Are there such laws of chemistry to generate the appearance of DNA? Are there any laws of the universe that make it possible to survive in cosmic cataclysms? Are there any laws of biology that would make intelligent life possible?
That is: what is the natural-scientific content of the laws of dialectical development?
So far, these issues remain speculative.
Meanwhile, "in the future, - Marx argued, - the science of human will include natural science in the same way, as natural science is the science of human, it will be one science - human science."

2) One highlights three types of movement: a cycle (noted in the Bible, in the book of Ecclesiastes, "the wind returns to its circles", "nothing is new under the moon"), transformations, i.e. irreversible qualitative changes that have no direction, and Hegelian development from the lowest to the highest.
The universality of the principle of development of matter as the ascent from lower to higher, from simple to complex is in conflict with two paradigms: the tendency of the system to a minimum of energy and law of conservation of mass-energy. Within these paradigms, any cosmological model will predict the death of life in the universe. The principle of dominant development as an ascent from the lowest to the highest is not laid down in physics today.

Fabruary 2021

References

1. Subbotin M. F. Galileo and cosmology // Galileo and modernity. - M.: Knowledge, 1964. - Ser. 9: Physics, mathematics, astronomy. P. 32.
2. Schaeffer W-M., The End of human exclusivity, 2007.
3. Grib A. A. A basic understanding of modern cosmology. M.: Fizmatlit, 2008.
4. Big Soviet encyclopedia, 1970, vol. 2; Gaidenko p. P. Anthropocentrism. The Great Russian Encyclopedia. 2005. pp. 91-92; Anthropocentrism // Popular Encyclopedia illustrated dictionary. Europedia / Edited by V. V. Ovchinnikov, Moscow: Olma-Press, 2003, p. 61.
5. Gaidenko P. P. History of New European philosophy in its connection with science. M., 2000. pp. 13-19. Cit. by Galinskaya I. L. P. Gaidenko. From the theocentrism of the Middle Ages to the anthropocentrism of the Renaissance. Bulletin of Cultural Studies. 2002. №3 (23). P. 13-15. Report.
6. Vershkov A.V. Anthropocentrism and modernity // Actual problems of the humanities and natural sciences. 2014. №5-1. P. 309-315.
7. The Cult of Vernadsky and the Noosphere / Viner Douglas R. / / V. I. Vernadsky: pro et contra. SPb., 2000. pp. 645-646.
8. Serbul A. A. The death of the subject: philosophical and cultural analysis of the problem of the subject in postmodern discourse. Philosophy of science. 2011. №2. P. 51-56.
9. Katha A. Natural history of man. M., 1861.
10. Alekseev V. P. Anthropological aspects of the problem of the origin and formation of human society // Problems of ethnography and anthropology in the light of the scientific heritage of F. Engels, M.: Nauka,1972. P. 73-75.

ON THE INTERRELATION OF MATHEMATICS, PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY

Introduction
The fact that mathematics was created in view of the urgent problems that stood in ancient times, is indicated by Gaidenko [1]. Using geome- try, we calculated areas and volumes, using arithmetic we calculated the price of bread, wages, and mathematics was needed during construction. Among the Egyptians and Babylonians, mathematics acted as a means, the Pythagorean school turned mathematics into a separate subject of re- search, Gaidenko notes.
Such a transformation is an objective process of ascent from the concrete to the abstract. Physics is similar with the introduction of integro-differential notation, completed by Leibniz and Newton, with the discovery of Kepler’s laws and further the Hook-Newton law of universal gravitation, etc. divided into experimental and theoretical. “Theoretical physics,” Landau remarked to experimenter Joffe when discussing the quantum tunnel effect, “is a complex subject, not everyone can understand it.” Nevertheless, the priority remains for experimental physics. So, Peierls and Landau theoretically proved the instability of two-dimensional lattices, the impossibility of graphene, but graphene was obtained. For in the dialectic pair “practice - theory” practice is primary, determining. Yet Holmes's question to Dr. Watson, why astronomy is needed in everyday life, is not trivial.

It would seem that cosmology, astrophysics, the detection of gravitational waves, for which more than $ 200 million were spent only in the last project, are of purely cognitive value. However, all these disciplines are connected with the rest of physics; their methods are used both in hydrodynamics and in solid state physics. Thanks to celestial mechanics, tidal power plants were built, cosmology and astrophysics give answers to questions about the already close relocation from the Earth, if in the next centuries the rate of expenditure of Earth’s resources does not slow down, after 200 years the world's population will be without resources. The Mossbauer effect has long been presented as a purely academic study. Today, this effect is used even in agriculture.
As Marx said, in science there is nothing but its practical application. On the other hand, Marx is right conceptually, but not situationally. Otherwise, the world would not have known astronomy. It would not have occurred to Aristarchus of Samos to propose a heliocentric system of the world and to deter- mine the distances to the Sun and the Moon and their sizes. And the point is not only that cognition cannot be limited by the economy. In order for Galileo to renounce his claim that the Earth rotates around its axis, they tortured him so that they carried him to a place of renunciation on a stretcher, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. Science, the process of cognition require rejection of dogma, they reflect not only a utilitarian, but also a worldview aspect. No tricks and twists can obscure the fact that scientific data on the origin of the Universe and the origin of life on Earth, Darwin's theory and the synthetic theory of evolution built on its basis directly refute religious writings. Today, unsolved problems in number theory, the hypotheses of van der Waerden, Collatz, Erd;s, the problems of Warring, Goldbach, etc., seemingly, are separated from the immediate needs of mankind. Nevertheless,
substantial funds are being invested in solving these problems.
But Pythagoras and his students did not simply ascend from the concrete to the abstract, they unilaterally, exaggeratedly raised one of the features, sides, faces of knowledge into absolute, they wanted to explain from the nature of everything that exists. Mathematics is methodologically separated from nature, in the mind of the Pythagorean - it loses touch with it. Then mathematical abstractions are put in the basis of matter as primary. Engels argued, for example: “Mathematical infinity is borrowed from reality
... and therefore it can be explained only from reality, and not from itself, not from mathematical abstraction. [2].
This article is not so much a criticism of mysticism in the spirit of Nordau as an attempt to present the reverse process: the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

Scientific laws and mysticism
The laws of physics are not applicable in history, the laws of biology in chemistry. On the other hand, physical laws in the field of quantum chemistry explain some chemical processes, if experimental data are used, other physical laws are used in biology (biophysics, bionics). In the last century, it was discovered that the same differential equations (Belousov-Zhabotinsky, Andronov) describe hydrodynamic processes, chemical reactions, and even bio- logical systems. Synergetics encompasses all of nature; catastrophe theory is able to predict the situation on commodity and financial exchanges. Similarly, the theory of probability that arose in the 17th and 18th centuries describes physical, chemical, biological, and social processes. And, although the higher forms of motion of matter are not reducible to the lower ones, mathematics is a reflection of all nature, its laws, and general necessary connections.
The only thing that mathematics cannot describe is the individuality of a person. For the reason that physics, chemistry, biology deal only with repeatable phenomena. In view of this, Aristotle did not see (in theory) a significant difference between Callius and Socrates [3]. The doctor does not treat Callia and Socrates, he treats the general in their organs, not with a specific disease, but something averaged.
The number is not contained in the substance. At the same time, it is common to various substances, manifests through them, does not ex- ist separately from them. Substances are not identical to each other, two metal balls are identical, as if it is impossible to summarize in view of their incomplete identity. Mathematical abstraction is distracted from insignificant differences, highlighting the general. Aristotle, one of the founders of dialectics, did not yet understand the dialectics of the singular and the general, that the essence is not separate from things, because he believed that the individual cannot be the subject of knowledge. But precisely for this reason, the basic social laws cannot be described mathematically. For example, the value of the goods is tangible (see [4]), i.e. exists objectively, regardless of the consciousness of the individual, but is not immanent to the product, like mass or charge, it exists only in the heads of people. Therefore, social laws are manifested only as trends, potential opportunities that may not be realized [5].
For example, there is a tendency to centralize capital, expressed in globalization, but it runs into the opposite centrifugal tendency, expressed in the growth of nationalism. Another example - the war of the poor South with the rich North predicted in [6] was expressed not in a clash of armies, but in the ugly form of Islamic fundamentalism. At the same time, the typicality, identity of “uniqueness” is expressed not only in ethnic, national,
state forms or in forms corresponding to the manipulations of the mass consciousness, but even in identical fragments of verses that are not citation. If the former is expressed in the formulation of Marx tied to the existing mode of production, that personality is a concrete totality of social relations, the latter is an independent phenomenon.
The distinction between the Pythagorean half-pass and Aristotle's approach to mathematics is not reduced to worldviews, it concerns the way of thinking, methodology.
One of the justifications of the materialistic method in mathematics is the history of its origin. The history of numbers begins 5 thousand years ago in Egypt and Mesopotamia, when animal husbandry and agriculture are developing. The founders of the special designations of numbers are considered the Sumerians, I - II millennium BC. The Indian positional number system, which Europe became acquainted with thanks to the Arabs, made it possible to record numbers using ten digits. In the Persian era, which began with the reign of Cyrus, a special symbol appears for zero, until this time the smallest number was one, and for Pythagoras too. In the III century BC Archimedes and Pythagoras substantiated the concept of infinity of a natural number. Pythagoras was one of the first to give the number an independent existence separate from matter. He created the philosophy of numbers, turned upside down the history of the emergence of numbers. The Pythagoreans “recognized the mathematical principles for the beginnings of everything that exists,” Aristotle noted [7]. Pythagoras believed that “all things are numbers,” numbers are ultimate, the primary basis of the world, because they are present in the living, and inanimate, and in the earth, and in the sea, and in heaven. This discourse in its un- changed form has survived to the present day, a variety of authors argue that, since the number is invariably present in completely different changing things, being a single basis, the number can be considered the beginning of the world. Among the adherents of this direction of the Pythagorean school, it comes to funny things, they believe that the interaction of independent numbers among themselves leads to a variety of things, the whole natural world is built of numbers, the world of spirit is reduced to number: love and friendship are identified with the figure eight, justice with multiple numbers. Thus, the whole world is a consistent deployment of an ideal entity - numbers. That is, various specific numbers endow with supernatural, magical properties, both in the era of Pythagoras and to this day: 5 - the number of happy marriage, in Judaism 7 - the number of luck, prosperity, 666 - the number of the devil, etc., the sum of the numbers date of birth supposedly determines fate.

The logical conclusion of the discourse - at the curiosity level, they say that the positive nucleus of an atom has a negative nucleus inside, a nucleus in the nucleus, in the form of a complement to the whole, to unity, the numerical axis in the sum and in the product of all members is equal to one, since it was born like a world from one, etc.
Moreover, the philosophy of Pythagoras was not something abstract, a certain game of the mind. His doctrine of harmony had a clear political goal
- to put the demos in complete submission to the power of the aristocracy. The worldview, morality of Pythagoras is the worldview and morality of an aristocrat. Each member of the Pythagorean Union was required to follow virtue, and among virtues - the virtue of obedience. In one of his Golden Poems, Pythagoras writes: “First of all, honor and love gods, heroes, creatures, between gods and heroes, but don’t ask them for anything in your prayers, you yourself don’t know what is good for you, it’s but only they know”.
For Pythagoras, the number 7 connects a person with a deity, since 3 is a deity, and 4 is a person.
We owe the Pythagorean teaching a theorem on the connection of the sum of squares of legs with the square of the hypotenuse in a right-angled triangle, the theorem on the sum of the angles of a triangle, distinguishing even, odd and even-odd numbers, studying the motion of celestial bodies. But, as we see, the significance of the Pythagorean school is far from exhausted. Quantitative abstraction was opposed to nature, arose as a system of mysticism of numbers. Instead of a moving, diverse, developing nature, the Pythagoreans have empty, devoid of movement abstractions. According to Pythagoras, the body for the soul is something random [8]. The teachings of Pythagoras, Architus, Eudoxus, Philolaus, as an attempt to idealistically comprehend the quantitative side of nature, became the basis of the Plato system.
For Pythagoras, the number 7 connects a person with a deity, since 3 is a deity, and 4 is a person.
We owe the Pythagorean teaching a theorem on the connection of the sum of squares of legs with the square of the hypotenuse in a right-angled triangle, the theorem on the sum of the angles of a triangle, distinguishing even, odd and even-odd numbers, studying the motion of celestial bodies. But, as we see, the significance of the Pythagorean school is far from exhausted. Quantitative abstraction was opposed to nature, arose as a system of mysticism of numbers. Instead of a moving, diverse, developing nature, the Pythagoreans have empty, devoid of movement abstractions. According to Pythagoras, the body for the soul is something random [8].

The teachings of Pythagoras, Architus, Eudoxus, Philolaus, as an attempt to idealistically comprehend the quantitative side of nature, became the basis of the Plato system. Mathematical symbols do not exist either in objects or outside them, they do not precede being. Symbols are the result of abstraction, highlighting in the subject of its certain side, the rest is discarded.
But does the common exist only in the form of similarities of many individual objects, only as one of the parties, separately only in the human head, in the form of a symbol? - asks a question Ilyenkov. And he answers: in fact, such a formulation of the question does not abstract the side, but the whole thing, pulls it out of its physics, its history. General - is a clan relationship in the objective world.
Is the singular in the sense of development as an ascent from the simple to the complex and from the lowest to the highest? Yes, if it itself is a minimum is a special variety.
The "Pythagorean" type of thinking is seen in Eckhart, Boehme, Jung, Aurobindo, James. Physicists are engaged by no less than journalists, along with interpretations within the framework of various expositions of the Copenhagen concept, there is also a mystical version of the quantum mechanics of Eddington - Jeans - Schr;dinger - von Neumann in the spirit of primitive subjective idealism of Hume - Berkeley. In attempts to create a unified field theory, in the theory of gravity, a whole direction, represented, for example, by J. Wyndham, J. Wheeler, etc., is associated with an at- tempt to put geometric symbols at the basis of the world, replace dynamics with geometrodynamics, quantum fluctuations of matter with quantum fluctuations of the metric space.
Space-time is eternal and unchanging, Plato believed. The concept of empty space having its own being goes back to Thales, Anaximander, Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius Carus. Galileo, Descartes, Hobbes, Newton affirmed the concept of substantial, absolute, independent of the subject of time. Hume, Mach considered space-time phenomena of consciousness, Augustine - time. The connection between the material world and the space-time form appears in Einstein's theory: the greater the mass, the greater the curvature of space and the slowing down of time. The empty Minkowski space is formed by the material Higgs vacuum [10].
In Einstein's theory, the energy-momentum tensor defines the structure of space-time. However, in many scientific articles the opposite is true: material filling is adjusted to the chosen metric. As a rule, such articles contradict new discoveries in cosmology.

Similarly, the physical characteristics of motion are endowed with a mystical meaning: mass, speed, energy. Energy is separated from the carrier, “energy particles”, “energy fields”, and “pure energy” that do not exist in nature are used, just as information is separated from the carrier, the “information field of the universe" is created, information is recorded on some carriers up to the state of a healthy organism. Finally, quantum mechanics is used to justify the supernatural, which is why the EPR paradox and quantum entanglement are very useful. Although it is well known that the laws of macroscopic physics do not work at the quantum level, it is pointless to discuss the excess of the speed of light in the stretched wave packet of a system of quantum particles, to detect the influence of the future on the past, to state that information is transmitted not in matter with quantum entanglement, etc. Obviously, the connection between entangled objects exists, but cannot be understood within the framework of classical determinism. As Lenin said, causal communication, which we usually understand, is only a part of global communication. “Every movement includes a mechanical movement and the movement of large or smallest parts of matter ... But this mechanical movement itself does not at all exhaust movement” [11]. The quantum world does not have to be microscopic, but can extend a thousand kilometers.
If the origins of the mysticism of the Pythagorean school, first of all, are epistemological and only in the second, as we saw - social, now the decrease in the level of generalization to animism, fetishism, totemism is generated primarily by the collapse of the economy and only in the second, as a result - by a decrease in the level of educational qualification. These processes gave rise to an idea (e.g., A.P. Gurevich) of mysticism, i.e. about crowning, etc., as part of a spiritual culture.

World constants
The number of world constants with dimension includes the electron charge, Planck’s constant,
Boltzmann constant, speed of light in vacuum, electric constant (deter- mines the value of the peak of the process of emitting a virtual photon) and gravitational interactions.
In gauge theory, the coupling parameter g has the dimension sqrt(hc). The
strong interaction constant has the same dimension. Finally, the weak interaction
constant (Fermi constant) determines the value of the peak of the muon decay process. The cosmological constant and the Hubble constant are also referred to world constants, although the latter change during the evolution of the Universe. There are no restrictions to consider other dimensional world constants changing with time. This hypothesis was first put forward by Henri Poincare in the early twentieth century.

For example, Australian physicists, led by theorist Paul Davis of Mc-Quare University in Sydney, suggested that when billions of light-years pass, the speed of light in a vacuum decreases. Astronomical observations showed that for the light from the selected quasar to reach the Earth, it will take about 10 billion years. In this case, the key constant characterizing the ratio of light photons and electrons on the quasar has changed, i.e. after 12 billion years of travel, the characteristics of light traveling from a quasar to the Earth do not correspond to those predicted by SRT This discrepancy can be explained either by a change in the charge of the electron, or by a change in the speed of light. It may turn out that 6-10 billion years ago the speed of light could be higher than now. From dimensional world constants such relations are obtained, for example, Planck radius or Planck time.
World constants that do not have dimensions include 3,14… - the Archimedes number, the base of the natural logarithm of e (Euler or Napier number), the Phidias number (golden ratio), and the Feigenbaum constants. Another world constant, a fine structure constant, does not have dimensionality, but it can be represented as a ratio of other world constants having a dimension.
Feigenbaum numbers are clearly associated with processes occurring in nature. These are universal constants characterizing an infinite cascade of period doubling bifurcations during the transition to deterministic chaos. First constant d = 4, 66920016..., characterizing chaos, sets the form of fractals associated with chaos. The second Feigenbaum constant a = 2,502907... is defined as the limit of the relationship between the width of the branches in the bifurcation diagram. This constant also arises in the description of many dynamical systems.
The Napier number stands out from the other bases of the logarithms in that (ex )’ = ex .
The first to pay attention to the "harmonic" "division of the segments was Pythagoras. In 1509. Fra Luca Pacioli called this division the "Golden Section". The Phidias number corresponds to the homogeneity of space, the Archimedes number - to the isotropy of space in non-Euclidean geometry, they are transformed. So, by the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, the integral of the Gaussian curvature on a compact 2-dimensional Riemannian manifold is equal to 6,28 ; (M ) , where ; (M ) - is the Euler characteristic of the manifold. As Engels wrote, “a unit, no matter how it appears identical to itself, contains infinite diversity” [12].
Number theory is occupied by various numerical sequences, for ex- ample, Fibonacci numbers, curly numbers, Fermat or Mersenne primes, etc. The extension of the field of real numbers is complex, hypercomplex numbers (quaternions, Cayley numbers or octaves), vector spaces. p-adic theory (expanding the field of rational numbers Q with the abandonment of the Archimedes axiom), which is used in quantum mechanics, as well as fractal geometry, with fractional dimensions and corresponding differentiation and integration, opens up wide possibilities for introducing additional world dimensionless constants. Fractional dimensions are expressed in probability theory.

The Euler number is related to such contradictory concepts as infinity and continuity; these very concepts connect it with the Archimedes number via the Gaussian integral: ;exp(-x2) = sqrt(3,14…), since Archimedes number can also be represented as the sum of the members of a numerical sequence. The first Feigenbaum constant is elementarily expressed in terms of the Phidium number d = Ф3/2(1+ Ф). Thus, the first Feigenbaum constant is not fundamental, and the Phidias number is also involved in the theory of fractals and the dynamics of chaos.

Distinction methodologies
Unfortunately, one has to pay attention not so much to criticizing scientific errors as to explicit engagement that is not related to science. For example, in the literature on the golden section, Butusov's article [13] is widely used. Butusov tried to explain from the numbers the trajectories and masses of the planets of the solar system. It is claimed that Butusov discovered the laws associated with the number of Phidias, and even quantum effects in the structure of the solar system, on the basis of which he predicted the parameters of the three supposed planets beyond Pluto. Butusov calculated that in the Earth’s orbit at the libration point beyond the Sun there is another planet similar to the Earth. However, the STEREO satellites launched in 2007 observed the area of the Lagrange point and did not find objects there.
Butusov is also credited with the prediction of 10 unknown satellites of Uranus, they say that in 1974 he predicted the discovery of Sedna. In fact, the prediction of 6 new satellites of Uranus was made by two Soviet scientists who received a state prize for this. The orbits of the satellites are calculated according to their resonance model. And in 1973 no one predicted the existence of Sedna.
Let us give an example of a scientific methodology.
In a problem with two identical weights suspended on springs and oscillating synchronously, their frequencies are determined through the "partial" frequency of individual weights w02 = k/m : w1 = ±w0 sqrt(1 + Ф); w2 = ±w0sqrt(2 – Ф).

Thus, the eigen frequencies of synchronous oscillations of the system of two weights are not one, but four, and all are proportional to the "partial" eigen frequency of individual weights, some lower than it, others higher. The proportionality coefficient is expressed in terms of the Phidias number. A particular solution to the problem with three weights of different weights is given in [14].
A general solution with many identical weights connected by springs is given in [15]. A particular solution with many different weights (oligosomes in DNA) for the frequency of synchronous vibrations is given in [16]; the frequency of a spring pendulum in the form of a DNA helix is inversely pro- portional to the square root of the average harmonic mass of oligosomes. Now we give an example of a reverse, upside down, mystical methodol- ogy. It is presented in [17], where an abstract system of two equations is considered. According to the author himself, he allowed himself to “move away from any physical reality”, however, he writes about oscillations with a set of frequencies. In fact, the equations under consideration correspond to oscillations of a system of two weights with different masses on springs. However, instead of its general solution, a solution is sought that would lead to the number of Phidias. With the same success, one could look for a
solution leading to the Archimedes number or to the Euler number.

Similarly, in numerous publications, including in [ibid., P. 441], attempts are being made to detect certain resonances in celestial mechanics. And it’s not just about trying to derive a formula similar to the Titius-Bode rule of thumb, according to which the radii of the orbits of all the planets of the solar system except Neptune, the planets lie on the sequence R = 0, 4 + 0, 3 х 2n , where R – the radius of the planet, n – its number starting from Mercury. Researchers, not understanding the essence of the resonance model, are trying to attract the constructed empirical formula precisely to the Phidias number. Moreover, they are not confused that some planets fall out of the resulting structures, in which case it is claimed that they are “approaching” the resonance. Approximate non-integers are identified with Fibonacci numbers only by the coincidence of their integer parts, the resonance model itself is perverted, it is argued that for resonance it is enough that the rotation periods of the planets relate to each other as integers, even with decimal additions.

“Orbital resonance in celestial mechanics is a situation in which the periods of revolution of two (or more) celestial bodies” are correlated as small natural numbers. As a result, these bodies periodically come together, being at certain points of their orbits. The resulting regular changes in the force of gravitational interaction of these bodies can stabilize their orbits. In some cases, resonant phenomena cause instability of some orbits ”(Wikipedia). Those. resonances either stabilize the upholstery or cause their instability.
In fact, the meaning of the resonance model is as follows.
If a particle rotates around the planet in 10 hours, and a satellite in 20 hours, this ratio is called a 1: 2 resonance. Every second passage, the particle meets the satellite, the influence of resonance accumulates, under the influence of the resonance satellite, the particle’s orbit stretches, increasing ellipticity. For example, if the circulation period of one ring of Uranus is 6 hours, and the other 8 hours, these two rings have a common resonant orbit with a period of 12 hours, which with a ring has a resonance of 6:12 = 1: 2, and with a second of 8:12 = 2: 3. The Phidia number, Fibonacci numbers, as we see, are nothing to do with.
The Phidia number in the mechanics of the planets of the solar system appears only in the connection between the functions of the potential and rotational energies of the Earth's group of planets and giant planets, as a proportionality coefficient. And not the coefficient, but the connection itself indicates the features of their origin.

Conclusion
By Noether's theorem, the law of conservation corresponds to each continuous symmetry. The homogeneity of space corresponds to the law of conservation of momentum, conservation of angular momentum corresponds to the isotropy of space. From the homogeneity of time follows the law of conservation of energy, from the isotropy of time - the conservation of parity. Lorentz covariance implies the invariance of the convolution of the 4-momentum, gauge invariance corresponds to the conservation of charge.
It is possible that each symmetry corresponds to a world constant that does not have a dimension.
The group of time shifts corresponds to the Pauli matrices, which, in turn, are generators of infinitesimal rotations for non relativistic particles with a spin of ;.
At the same time, neither time nor gauge transformations or strong interactions have a dimensionless fundamental number. For time, even with some tension, the dimensional constant cannot be taken equal to H-1, because other constants are tied to the classical world and are not fundamental in non-Euclidean geometry. Perhaps the fact is that time, as a form of the existence of matter, already in SRT is “confused” with space through a fundamental constant, the speed of light. However, it is also possible that these constants are still awaiting discovery. Accordingly, by analogy with the second constant of Feigenbaum - new mathematics and a new under- standing of determinism.

References

1. Gaidenko P.P. History of Greek philosophy in its connection with sci- ence. SPb: Un-ty book, 2000, 319 P.
2. Engels F. Dialectics of nature. PSS V, 20, P. 79.
3. Aristotle. Metaphysics. M.-L.:1934, V. 1. P. 204, 214.
4. Ilyenkov E.V. Dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx "Capital". M.: USSR AS, 1960.
5. Ikhlov B. L. What is history? From the point of view of a physicist. CLIO. SPb.: 1998. №1(4). P. 16-24.
6. Lenin V.I. Imperialism as the highest stage of development of capital- ism. PSS, ed. 5, V.27.
7. Aristotle. Metaphysics. M.-L.: 1934. V 5. P. 985.
8. Engels F. Dialectics of nature. PSS, V. 20. P. 148.
9. Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. Rostov-on-Don, 2002, P. 47, 50.
10. Ikhlov B. L. Higgs vacuum in the theory of gravity. Abst. diss. cand. phys.-math. sci. M.: MSU, 1988. http://search.rsl.ru/ru/catalog/re- cord/134189
11. Engels F. Dialectics of nature. PSS. V. 20, P. 567.
12. Engels F. Dialectics of nature. PSS. V. 20, P. 30.
13. Butusov K.P. Golden Section in the Solar System. As- tronomy and celestial mechanics. Series "Problems of the study of the universe." M.: Science, 1978. Issue. 7. P. 475-500.
14. Landau L. D., Livshits E. M. Short course of theor. physics. V. I, “Me- chanics”, M.: “Science”, 1988, P. 101.
15. Crawford F. Waves. M.: Nauka. 1974. P. 90.
16. Ikhlov B. L. DNA spectra. Bulletin of new medical technologies. 2018. V. 25, №2. P. 121–134.
17. Kovalev A. In search of the fifth order. 2019. P. 404. ISBN 978-5- 4485-3753-0.

WHAT IS HISTORY? FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A PHYSICIST

The revolution
Materials on conflict management (for example, E. V. Burtovaya "Con¬flictology") and political technologies speak of the obvious determinism of society, although discussions about determinism in history or its absence have been going on for centuries. New discoveries in physics give new impetus to these discussions.
Prigogine states: "In 1986, Sir James Lighthill, who later became Presi¬dent of the International Union of Pure and Applied Mathematics, made an amazing statement: he apologized on behalf of his colleagues for the fact that" for three centuries the educated public was deceived by the apology of determinism based on the Newton's system, whereas it can be consid¬ered proven, at least since 1960, that this determinism is an erroneous position." [1].
Already in physics, a researcher is faced with the fact that the former Laplacian determinism does not work even in previously seemingly classi¬cal systems, like an ordinary pendulum or billiards. It turned out that there are ranges of parameter values when it is impossible to predict the be¬havior of the system. Obviously, all sciences, from chemistry to historical materialism, were forced to use the concept of determinism that developed precisely in physics. And this idea turned out to be critically inadequate. Although Marx sharply criticized the metaphysical (mechanistic, transform¬ist) approach in science as crudely objectivist, the general understanding of determinism remained within the framework of the Newtonian approach.
"If we move the weight of the pendulum," Prigogine continues, "not far from its lowest position, then in the end it will return to its starting point — this is a point attractor. The chemical clock is a periodic attractor. Later, much more complex attractors (strange attractors) corresponding to a set of points were discovered. In a strange attractor, the system moves from one point to another in a deterministic manner, but the trajectory of move¬ment eventually becomes so confused that it is impossible to predict the movement of the system as a whole - it is a mixture of stability and instabil¬ity ... our environment, climate, ecology and ... our nervous system can be understood only in the light of the concepts described, taking into account both stability and instability. ... Recognition of instability is not surrender, on the contrary, it is an invitation to new experimental and theoretical re¬search, taking into account the specific nature of this world. We just have to say goodbye to the idea that this world is our uncomplaining servant ... We must admit that we cannot completely control the world of unstable phenomena around us, just as we cannot completely control social pro¬cesses (although the extrapolation of classical physics to society for a long time made us believe this)"[2].
Admitting "instability" is not a surrender of determinism. Because in the same way it is impossible to find out through which of the two holes in the screen the electron flew, if the aim of the experiment is an interfer-ence pattern. The electron is arranged differently, not as a particle, and the world is arranged differently, not in the same way as within the framework of the physicalist approach. "Causality," writes Lenin in his Philosophical Notebooks, "which we usually understand," is only a part of the universal connection."
For the overwhelming majority of physicists, qualitative transitions exist only as phase transitions, i.e. fit into the framework of the old Newtonian determinism, although already in quantum mechanics this type of deter-minism does not work. For most physicists, the chemical form of the mo¬tion of matter is reduced to a set of physical laws, living matter is not much different from inanimate matter, a person is not much different from an animal - simply by the degree of complexity. New discoveries in physics, breaking old ideas about determinism, have shaken the tradition of think¬ing of the physical community, it still considers qualitative transitions to be a kind of humanitarian and philological exercise. In the best case, they recognize the fact of the existence of qualitatively different objects, but, like Hawking, Feynman, Braginsky and others, explain this fact by divine inter¬vention. Accordingly, physicists believe, someday the moment will come, and the Theorist will derive the quantum-fractal-stochastic equation of mo¬tion of human society.
But if in physics there are ranges of values of the parameters of a sys¬tem where the prediction of its behavior is in principle impossible, one must try to understand what is the impossibility of using the known types of determinism in the description of social processes. Let's do this on the ex¬ample of an unstable, unstable situation in society - a revolution. The clas¬sical formula "the upper classes cannot govern in the old way, the lower classes do not want to live in the old way" proceeds from the following provisions: 1) the presence of a crisis - for one reason or another (war, senile insanity of the leadership, external aggression, systemic reasons); 2) the impoverishment (or oppression in any form) of the masses above the usual, 3) the exceptional activity of the masses, 4) hegemony in this activity of the proletariat. The third point is special, it depends on a gigantic number of factors, including the level of education of the masses. Ernest Mandel devoted a whole book to these factors (alas, with a lot of significant gaps and errors) [3]. An important point in the theory of revolution is tactics. In 1917, it consisted in the recognition of the revolutionary character of the peasantry and the need for a political alliance between the working class and the peasantry. The most critical moment in the concept is the concept of the avant-garde and the presence of a "subjective condition" - with nu¬merous reservations - of the ruling party.
Alas, since Lenin formulated this theory, practically nothing has been added to it. On the contrary, technical issues, the so-called "technologies", primarily related to the manipulation of mass consciousness, began to be passed off as a theory, starting with "Mein Kampf" and "Prison Notebooks" and ending with modern publications about "colored" pseudo-revolutions. SG Kara-Murza believes that Gramsci created a new theory of revolution, "urban", as opposed to Lenin's, "rural", while claiming that "Gramsci denied such mechanistic analogies that are attracted by historical materialism" [4]. In fact, Gramsci, in his Prison Notebooks, did not change anything in Lenin's concept of revolution. He only included a layer of the technical intelligentsia in the proletariat, and he placed this enlightened layer as the hegemon over the working class. Gramsci was not alone, but in this he did not invent anything new either.
Kara-Murza states: "The theory of the Gramsci revolution is being de¬veloped by many authors, even textbooks are written on its basis. These include, for example, J. Sharpe's book From Dictatorship to Democracy. Conceptual Foundations of Liberation ". It was published in 1993 and is a textbook for the activists of the "orange revolutions". The doctrine of con¬trolling the consciousness of the masses and the ideology of exporting democracy underlying this text have clearly manifested themselves in the Georgian and Ukrainian events that have already taken place ... In the logic of Gramsci's teachings, the hegemony of socialist forces in the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe was undermined in the 70-80s ... Mass "molecular" aggression into consciousness was carried on continu¬ously and undermined the cultural core. "It is impossible to carry out and even prepare a revolution by learning phrases at demonstrations, phrases like" we love you "or methods of group resistance to the police - if there is no soil in the country, that is, there are no objective conditions. But the collapse of the system in the USSR is not a revolution. demonstrations and rallies, nor the procession of miners to the capital, could not have had much influence if the government, represented by the CPSU elite, as the most organized force, would not itself be interested in a coup - to legalize itself as a government by converting capital in the form of an administrative function into capital in the form of money.
As for the "orange" revolutions, the so-called "molecular aggression" is just an external expansion using the "fifth column", known since the time of the conquests of Tutankhamun or old Scotland. The powers-that-be always have more means for "molecular blurring" than the opposition. Therefore, no amount of "molecular aggression" from below can prepare a revolution. But it is possible to establish a farce if the "molecular aggression" is well paid from the outside. So, in 2004, in Ukraine, the US State Department paid Yushchenko's supporters $ 300 each, and Yanukovych paid the min¬ers $ 40 each. Obviously, such an expansion cannot be called a revolution either, and its technologies can be used as a predictive method, which is a mechanistic approach, against which Prigozhin objects - together with Marx, Engels, Lenin.
What other approaches, besides Sharpe's textbooks, are there to the formation of a predictive apparatus in history? Maybe some kind of theory of uprisings, because revolution is one of the variants of uprising? Alas, there is no such theory. Although the name is there. For example, Berg¬flet's theory of uprisings. According to Bergflet, "there is no essential con¬tradiction between the Marxist and the purely liberal understanding of pro-duction. Marx only considers the question of distribution differently than the capitalist economists, and the problem of production itself is not touched upon by either side. In this regard, Bergflet writes: "Marxist criticism of political economy remains a captive of capitalism, since it (like capitalism itself) is based on the assertion of the unlimited development of productive forces, both technical and scientific, as well as on the radical exploitation of natural resources, which logically follows from development of produc¬tive forces. It is precisely because of this fact that all systems that actually existed until recently, based on the teachings of Marx, did not represent any genuine alternative to capitalism. Their "socialism" was actually just a kind of "state capitalism"[5].
Bergflet correctly defines the social system in the USSR, but tradition¬ally confuses Marxism and "A Short Course in the History of the AUCPb". It was from the point of view of Marx and Engels that the system in the USSR was state capitalism (see, for example, "Antiduring"). It was Marx who repeated Adam Smith when he spoke of the monotonous, stupefying, depersonalizing labor of the worker.
How does Bergflet himself understand production? "In isolating the fun¬damental principles of anti-economics, Bergflet refers to the concepts of Georges Bataille, his intellectual teacher. Bataille in his fundamental work "The Damned Part" formulated a completely new approach to the study of the problem of material production in human society and its initial motiva¬tions. Bergflet summarizes Bataille's ideas in the following words: "The fundamental discovery of Bataille is that all traditional societies exist by squandering surplus in ritual or festive procedures." That is, Bergflet and his teacher Bataille have a feudal-slave-owning understanding of produc¬tion, and it makes no sense to take Bergflet's "teaching" seriously about insurrection as classless.
According to Bergflet's plan, "the uprising should be aimed against the most powerful force, radically hostile to the element of life. In the face of the enormous lethal potential of our era, the Rebellion should not be dis-tracted by pseudo-problems such as the Marxist class struggle or the trade union struggle for cash. " Bergflet protests against technocracy, which de¬stroys the surrounding nature, but does not notice what Marx saw: tech-nocracy destroys human nature. For Bergflet's man is an abstraction, while the conveyor belt destroys the nature of a very specific class - the worker.
We find the "general theory of uprising" in the book of the conspiracy theorist Alexander Dugin. There is no theory in it, there is a remark that the origins of aggression are in the desire to expand one's capabilities at the expense of someone. In pursuit of the divine.
Dugin does not understand that for a socialist revolution as an act of ag¬gression, the expansion of opportunities due to the bourgeoisie (redistribu¬tion) is of an auxiliary nature, its goal is to "shed the snake skin", the trans¬formation of the working class from a class-for-itself into a class-for-other, disappearance of not only the bourgeoisie, but also the working class.
It is obvious that Dugin considers development only in an extensive plan, for him, as well as for physicists, there is no qualitative leap forward. In forecasting, Dugin's "theory", executed in a Nietzschean-existentialist spirit, cannot be used, for example, such a fundamental statement that "a hammer blow cannot kill, just as it cannot revive the clean morning air full of ozone." The statement precedes the statement that "These fields and trees do not really exist. They left long ago with the dogs torn to shreds. The dogs took them with them, into the funnel of eternity, turning the land¬scape inside out."
Bergflet and Dugin have something in common. They, like Gramsci, think in a liberal spirit, because for Dugin the most important thing is spe¬cial people, the vanguard of the hegemon, a kind of "order of the sword" that Stalin dreamed of: "agents of the Inner Continent".

Classes and strata

The Marxist theory was created in the second half of the XIX century. However, already at the beginning of the XX century, it became clear that the social structure of society was evolving somewhat differently than Marx had predicted. Instead of being simplified to two polar elements (bourgeois - proletarians), it became more complex and multi-layered. Political life has also become more complicated. The class model of its subjects began to look too general and simplified, although Marx also pointed out that within classes there are many independent groups (professional, regional) with their own interests that differ from those of the general class. In addition, class analysis explains the change in socio-economic formations, which does not happen every century, and Marx himself wrote that feudalism re¬placed slavery by no means through class struggle. It is difficult to interpret with the help of class analysis the less global dynamics of political conflicts, the rapid change of political situations within the framework of local histori¬cal periods.
Marx discovers tendencies - but these tendencies are not obligatory, rigid.
Therefore, at the beginning of the XX century, American sociologist and political scientist Arthur Bentley proposed the concept of "interest group", which is still used in political and conflict analysis. This concept denotes the unification of people on the basis of a community of interests and ac¬tions in a specific political situation. They take on the functions of repre¬senting the interests of their members in interaction with political power and, accordingly, are involved in political conflicts. Among such interest groups, as a rule, business associations, trade unions, youth and veteran organizations, unions and societies of farmers, scientists, culture, religion, environmental, feminist and other movements and organizations. Accord¬ing to A. Bentley, the interaction of such groups and the state is the core of the political process. Moreover, even the state institutions themselves can be regarded as an official group of interests. Therefore, they should be considered the real subjects of political activity and conflicts in this area.
Ultimately, politics is a way of reconciling the interests of various social groups in conflict. In their dynamics today, two oppositely directed tenden¬cies are noted. The first, more traditional, is expressed in the consolidation, aggregation of political interests by two or three leading political forces. Soberly assessing their real opportunities to break through to power, rela¬tively small interest groups consider it good to support one of the powerful political groupings that have real power. In this case, a small political con¬flict is, as it were, absorbed, dissolves into a larger one, which in principle contributes to the stability and stability of the political system as a whole.
Another trend in the modern dynamics of political interests has the ex¬act opposite meaning: it consists in the diversification of political interests, that is, in the growth of their diversity and the increase in points of inter-section. This is explained both by the "loosening" of the former rigid so¬cial-class structure, and by the growth of "heterogeneity of the spheres of life" (R. Dahrendorf's term). The latter means that more and more people find themselves in situations where certain common interests in one of the spheres of life (for example, interest in preserving the environment) can coexist quite peacefully with the difference of interests in other spheres (for example, labor). People no longer consider themselves rigidly belonging to any specific socio-political group, but change their "orientation" depending on which of the many problems seems to them to be the most important today. All this, of course, complicates the overall picture of political conflicts and makes it multidimensional.
Thus, modern interest groups are quite justifiably recognized as real subjects of political conflicts. But formal political institutions (president, government, parliament) have no less reason to claim this role. Indeed, in addition to group interests, there are also national interests - ensuring sovereignty, security, law and order, the implementation of large-scale eco¬nomic projects, etc. They cannot be decomposed into group components or, at least, are not completely reducible to them. In addition, government agencies, despite all their social and group engagement, still have to per¬form arbitration or mediation functions in resolving conflicts between com¬peting groups. Indeed, even within the dominant groups, contradictions may arise (for our exporters, for example, a cheap ruble is beneficial, and for importers, on the contrary, an expensive one; both of them will not fail to lobby their interests in state structures). Moreover, contradictions and conflicts can arise within the state structures themselves (a clash of the ex¬ecutive and legislative branches of government, for example). So, political institutions should also be recognized as full subjects of political conflicts.
It is argued that in the middle of the XX century, the dominant stratifica¬tion order was based not on classes and private property in the sphere of production, but on the state and various organizational systems (corpo¬rate, professional, municipal, etc.). Accordingly, the nature of intergroup conflicts has changed: they have become smaller, but more diverse. The subjects of conflicts are more and more groups not only "social", that is, created on the basis of belonging to a social and professional category, but also target or initiative groups, that is, uniting people in accordance with a specific task that they solve (environmental, consumer, human rights). The unevenness of the social development of the modern world adds to the diversity of the fabric of intergroup conflicts: in some countries, conflicts of the traditional type, determined by class and even tribal structures, prevail; in others, more "advanced", new social movements set the tone.
In fact, all "target" conflicts "are imposed and are designed to channel class conflicts into a channel that is safe for the authorities. The theory of strata reduces the number of attributes of a social group, moreover, it throws out the most essential - the attitude towards the means of produc¬tion.

Different determinism. Lack of revolution

The standard comparative method in the scientific community was not used in the most interesting place: a comparison of the revolutions of the late XIX and early XX centuries. The pioneer was the engineer of the Yaro¬slavl Engine-Building Plant N. N. Kovalev, who in 1986 led the first major legal strike in the history of the USSR against black Saturdays and Sun¬days, which did not end with repression. His brochure, published by samiz¬dat in 1989, did not find a reader.
Let us compare the development of the understanding of determinism in the natural sciences with the understanding of determinism in history.
Today, the opposite question is relevant: not why revolutions occur (we do not consider theories of the origin of social conflicts due to magnetic storms or original sin), but why they do not occur. In [6], well-known histori-cal examples of the passivity of the masses with a sharp increase in op¬pression in various countries are given: "The British deliberately ruined the Indian textile industry of a competitor of British textile workers. As a result, in 1769-70, famine broke out in the main center of Indian cotton production in Bengal, which took away a third of the population - 7 million people, and according to other estimates, all 10 ... In the 80s - 90s, the tragedy in Ben¬gal repeated itself and died out of hunger already half of the population - 10 million people Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, as the power of the British spread throughout India, mass famine has become common¬ place in the country. According to British official data in British India, 1800- 25 1 million people died of hunger, in 1825-50 - 400 thousand, in 1850-75 - 5 million people, in 1875-1900 - 26 million people ... not counting small local episodes or the "holy Islamic war" of the Indian Wahhabis (started in 1823), ... the first serious act of resistance from ... the Indian population was the uprising of the Faraisites in Bengal in 1823, 60 years after the start of the mass famine. ... the Indians dying of hunger were not at all Bud¬dhists, who fundamentally denied violence, but followers of Hinduism and Islam - militant (in comparison with Christianity) beliefs. ... However, since 1838, uprisings in India began to flare up regularly, in 1857 the famous uprising of the sepoys began, which turned into a national one"(p. 33).
Another example: "The first massive artificial famine was organized in Ireland by the British in the XVI century. It was the result of the tactics of ousting the indigenous population from the lands belonging to them, which was carried out in the form of military operations: the British destroyed crops, stole livestock, robbed property, burned buildings, physically exter¬minated those who did not know (or could not) escape to the forests and mountains. ... The extermination of the Irish by starvation lasted two de¬cades before the first major rebellion broke out ... of the northern clans led by Shan O'Neill (1559-67). True, since that time, the uprisings in Ireland followed one after another, and in the XVII century a nationwide Irish up¬rising (1641-52) even broke out, which essentially turned into a national liberation war, which almost ended in victory (by August 1649, when in Cromwell's troops landed in Ireland, the British held in their hands only Dublin and Londonderry). In the XIX century, history repeated itself. Af¬ter the suppression of the Irish uprising in 1798 .... the British authorities imposed ... high duties on the export of Irish woolen goods to England and abroad and thus destroyed the most dynamically developing branch of Irish industry. ... Workers from ruined factories turned into super-cheap labor ... In 1845, the disease of the potato (the staple food ... of the Irish population) caused famine in the country ... in 1846 the "grain laws" were abolished in England, which caused a sharp drop in the price of bread and prompted ... landlords in Ireland to drive out peasants from the land and reorientation of the country's agriculture from agriculture to pasture animal husbandry. The famine took on the character of a national tragedy. Over the course of several years, over 1 million people died of starvation in Ireland ... An attempt at an uprising led by the "Irish Confederation" in July 1848 failed. Scattered disturbances in the spring and summer of 1848 in Ireland were easily suppressed. The predominant reaction of the Irish was not resistance, but flight ... "(p. 37).
Here, in parentheses, one can note the fatalistic, dialectical attitudes of various political leftists: "The bourgeois revolution in England was ob¬jectively progressive ..." Or: "Thanks to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, mankind avoided a global nuclear war ..." Or: "US expansion in Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, etc. - a manifestation of objective globalization, "and so on. So, if the starving Irish destroyed Cromwell, they would have acted from the position of backward production? Regression is an inalienable and in particulars (which may later turn out to be decisive) moment of progress, progress is not complete without blood. But the cutlets must be separated from the flies, progress is not identical with regression, the bombing of Hiroshima or Belgrade is a crime.
(An interesting remark from Engels: "I understand that capitalism devel¬ops the productive forces, displacing the non-competitive (i.e., not only by force, but also by the price or quality of the goods, B. I.), ... but I don’t want to participate in this".)
The flip side of crude objectivism is the idea of society as a mechanical system. Namely: in order to change anything in society, it is assumed that an organized force is needed. Further, the wrong conclusion is drawn from the correct premise: this organization must be a party. Self-organization is replaced by the party, the activity of the lower classes, including in the economy - by voting for the organization. It is understood that this orga¬nization has the ability, by pressing some levers, to manage society. Let us even assume that the party is trying to go not ten steps forward, but one step away from the practice of the labor movement. But one way or another - only the party generalizes, but this is not given to the workers. In this case, there is no question of any consciousness. Obviously, the class-party relationship cannot be maintained the same as it was in 1917.
Third example: "According to various estimates, in the process of the conquest of America ... from 90 to 120 million people were exterminated ... with the conquest of America and the establishment, for example, in the Spanish possessions of a stable colonial regime, the genocide of the Indians did not stop. It just took on a different form of classical exploitation ... In Peru ... 100% of the workforce was killed in mercury mines, 80 out of every 100 workers in silver ... It is believed that over 8 million Indians died in the mines of Peru during the colonial period. ... At the beginning of the conquest of Peru, up to 10 million Indians lived on the territory of the viceroyalty, and according to the census of the 90s of XVIII century, there were no more than 600 thousand in them ... Of course ... it was a process stretched out in time and territorially, and the behavior of the Indians is by no means fatal humility. But it is still obvious that the scale of the resistance of the Indians as a whole did not correspond to the scale of the genocide against them"(p. 39).
Eduardo Galeano wrote about this back in 1971 - in the book "Opened Veins of Latin America". An estimate using the Verhulst equation turns out to be 15 million destroyed using the official data on the initial number of Indians and 103 million using data on the real number.
"The European Middle Ages," the author further writes, "in general was a period of not sporadic, but constant famine. ... But if you read the Rus¬sian chronicles, then the same thing there ... According to A. Ya. Shevelen¬ko's calculations, in Europe in the Middle Ages "hunger strikes happened on average every 6 years and often led to catastrophic consequences." In Russia, where the climate is harsher ... happened every 3 years until the XX century. ... In Italy, the XIV century was a century of crop failures, as¬sociated with hunger and an extraordinary increase in social oppression, ... burdened by the plague. From 1300 to 1450, the population of Italy de¬creased from 11 million to 8 million. Life expectancy has declined over the course of a century from 40 to 20 years. ... We ... can count serious acts of resistance on one hand ... the uprising led by Dolcino in 1304-7, the Cola di Rienzo uprising in 1347, the clothmakers uprising in Perugia in 1371, the chompi uprising in 1378, the Tukin uprising in 1386-87. … If we turn to the era of slavery, then the picture there is even more bleak."(P. 40).
The helots' obedience to Sparta is similar to the behavior of their Mes¬senian neighbors. However, the Messenians, like the Hindus, rebelled only a century after the seizure in the VIII part of Messenia by Sparta and the compulsion to give 1/2 of the harvest (the 2nd Messenian War). 120 thou¬sand Egyptian fellahs resignedly died during the construction of the Suez Canal, etc.
Revolution is a type of social conflict. A similar "revolutionary situation" is needed for social conflict. It could be argued that a certain level of de¬velopment of the productive forces is required for the development of a conflict, which the Indians or Indians did not have.
However, the closure of factories in Russia in 1992, mass layoffs, and a double jump in mortality did not cause any resistance from workers.
On the other hand, accelerated and violent collectivization since 1928, famine in the Urals, Transcaucasia and other regions of the USSR in 1932- 1933, together with dispossession of the middle peasants, instantly pro-voked tens of thousands of peasant uprisings.
It is noted in [6] that the statement "increased oppression leads to an in¬tensification of social struggle" is not even grossly sociological, but simply has nothing to do with science. It is clear that in modern Russia the price press does not connect, but separates people. Let us add that Lenin's formula for revolution does not work either: the upper classes cannot, the lower classes do not want, plus a sharp deterioration in the position of the masses above the usual. The author is looking for the reasons for pas¬sivity in the psychology of the philistine, the philistine, in egoism, which, of course, does not add anything to the laws of history. Of course, each and every generation has a choice, because we are dealing with a human society. However, in the examples set forth in [6], something quite differ¬ent can be traced: ultimately, uprisings do occur, and the period of their "preparation" - to be precise - self-organization depends, rather, not on the accidental birth of a leader or a leading group, but on technical means communication, uniting production base and other objective factors.
The exalted appeal in [6] to weapons and "subjective efforts" ("... the country has no new leaders and new ideas that could inspire people to fight ... new ideologies are not developed in a couple of years") is tradi¬tional for Moscow the public. It leaves aside the practice of the masses themselves (social creativity) both in protests and in the development of an ideology that can arise only from this very practice of the masses, but is not invented by any leader or group of theoreticians. Such a "romantic" approach is an insurmountable wall in front of many researchers.
But in [6] there is a serious confusion: in the case of the Indians and Indians, there is no increase in oppression, there is an invasion of the enemy forces, far superior in technology. Cases of famine or plague are a completely different area, but even here there is no personalized increase in oppression, it is pointless to raise an uprising against the virus or crop failure.
Today there is a necessary process of mastering the mass of property relations from scratch (for more details see [7]), it is impossible to skip it, as they tried to do after 1917 by legal abolition of private property. Not to men¬tion the fact that today not only an armed uprising, but also an all-Russian strike is unattainable for the workers, although there were plenty of subjec¬tive efforts. At the same time, despite all sorts of explanations, their clas¬sification and some practical conclusions, the question remains of which factors should be considered the main ones at a given point in space-time, which are insignificant, how social dynamics occurs under the influence of these factors and what is meant by social dynamics.
For example, the replacement of historical dynamics by class struggle, which at one time turned out to be extremely productive, means not only the exclusion of relatively independent ethnic dynamics from the integral process, but the reduction of the general to the particular. Evolution is de¬clared a vegetation period, a preparatory period, development is made in strict dependence on the so-called historical necessity ("Darwin needed Darwin was born"). A criticism of this reduction will be developed below. On the other hand, deliberate inattention to the struggle of classes is only an attempt to pass off wishful thinking. Ethnicity has now been supplanted by class, for example, it is difficult to call the events in Nagorno-Karabakh, Yugoslavia or Chechnya national conflicts, these conflicts are not caused by national oppression, the leaders of national groups play the role of pup¬pets in the hands of the United States and its satellites.
However, the use of classical Marxist schemes runs up against the rudimentary nature of the historical method. History as a science, in the words of Mark Blok, is too young, its logic is less developed than the logic of natural sciences or literature. Although Marx (and modern researchers) drew a semblance of theory even from illustrations (for example, "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte," which strikingly anticipated the events of 1991 and 1993, as if confirming the method of analogies).
The transfer in the spirit of Freud (i.e. the spread of the ideas of psy¬chiatry to sociology) of the methods of the natural sciences into history also does not determine the historical-mathematical equation, that is, its own, independent logic of history. Although the connection between natural sci¬ence methodology and social dynamics is obvious, and they interpenetrate (Marx writes that in the future the science of man will include the natural sciences just like the natural sciences, human studies, it will be a single science).

Criticism of the method

It is obvious that the general pattern, which would seem to be visible from a number of examples, can be questioned and requires clarification. The fact is that in [6] the time frame is not limited by anything, therefore, if the degrees of influence on the masses are comparable, then the state of the masses and the conditions in which they were found are significantly different, and in general the events turn out to be incomparable. (In general terms, on the one hand, we have no right to talk about the nature of the protest, having a short period of time at hand, and on the other hand, to transfer macroscopic regularities to a microscale.)
The Hegelian interjection "history repeats itself twice" or Marx’s addition "the second time in the form of a farce" is confirmed by events in Russia, the USSR is a vivid example of the cyclical nature of social development with repetitions of the features of feudalism (A.B. Razlatsky, 1975) and the Asian mode of production. However, the idea of cyclicity comes from the scheme of dialectical development from opposition to synthesis, then to the denial of the synthesized, i.e. to the return on a different level of what was removed in the process of synthesis. First, the sides of the future con¬tradiction are distinguished, then their opposite arises, then its aggravation to a contradiction. In this diagram, it is not clear what is the source of the movement from discrimination to opposition and further to contradiction. Also a contradiction? (F.F.Vyakkerev, 1966).
Dialectical determinism assumes that if there is a contradiction in the system (which drives history), then its mechanics - the divergence of sides into opposites and further synthesis - makes it possible to predict. If the system disintegrates in the course of removing the contradiction, then, Hegel writes, there were no forces in the system that kept the opposing sides in unity. Moreover, at what point in time decay or synthesis will occur, it is not known, forecasting in this case is impossible.
B. Porshnev, L. Gumilev, A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky tried to compre¬hend the temporal scales of history. (Let us cut off in advance the direction of searches in the spirit of Kozyrev, see, for example, a number of works in [8], trying to reduce physical time to biological processes or to find a special biological time.) If A. Fomenko, despite many mistakes and outrage on linguistics, raised the question of the reliability of chronology (it turns out that astronomical data do not confirm historical data; secondly, if his¬tory was rewritten in the twentieth century, then it was previously distorted by the authorities), if Porshnev pointed to the acceleration of history, then Gumilev discovered the structure of history, described by fractals, which describe other forms of motion of matter. (The phenomenology of ethnic dynamics with an assessment of the maximum life span of an ethnos is, of course, important, but the introduced concept of passionarity is akin to the phantoms of caloric or phlogiston). The point is that when the histori¬cal scale is reduced, the forecast may change to the exact opposite. For example, a wind direction factor that is not taken into account on a larger scale can change the outcome of the battle (the wind helps the command¬er to hear the enemy's approach, the troops deploy and repel the attack).
Nechaevism stood aloof both from the social democratic trend and from other social movements. In The Possessed, Dostoevsky clearly distorted the history of the strike at the Neva paper mill (Plekhanov writes about it in a completely different way), but it was nechaevism that manifested itself in the future as a general feature of the Stalinist regime (see M. A. Ba¬kunin's letter to S. G. Nechaev June 2, 1870, where he actually agrees with Nechaev regarding the management of society by a narrow group, [9]). Becquerel accidentally puts photographic plates in his pocket with radioac¬tive samples, resulting in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not without the help of the Einstein-Hilbert theory. Obviously, no class struggle would have led to such a result in science.
The situation can be compared not with the lack of model parameters, say, in the theory of catastrophes (such as a fold, where the "parameter" of the photographic plate slowly changes), but rather with supercritical in-stability: a weak disturbance breaks away from the roughness of the pipe, a vortex, which is maintained due to the type of vortex by the main current, since it is so arranged, the vortex grows and soon becomes the main cur-rent itself. Lydia Ginzburg believed that Stalinism was precisely this type of disaster: "Even a child, playing with matches, can burn a city if the city is wooden."
Is this true? Was it possible to avoid totalitarianism by replacing the superstructure with a democratic one, as representatives of the Trotskyist trends think? For example, blood flows through our veins at a speed ex¬ceeding the critical one, but turbulence does not arise precisely because of the absence of roughness. However, what scale should the historical roughness be? Is it possible to take into account all their types when grad¬ually refining the search scale?
On the contrary, a larger shot allows you to detect patterns and make predictions that are not visible when trying to take into account absolutely all factors. That is, with a large number of events, it becomes possible to track something in between, just as in thermodynamics we are doomed to ignorance of the trajectories of all particles, but due to their large number, we can determine some average characteristics of the system and find a connection between them.
Obviously, the larger plan already implies generalization. The circle has closed: in order to deduce a pattern, we need to determine the time scale, but to do this, we need to know it. For physics, this situation is standard when it comes to choosing not a scale, but a number of factors: at some step it is necessary to interrupt the reasoning, to limit the problem, and the limitation looks less fair than the objection to it. So, Newton, unlike Giordano Bruno, broke the chain of reasoning, presenting space-time as independent of material bodies, but got a working theory. As far as the choice of scale is concerned, reductionist-finalist concepts are preserved in physics in this respect. In particular, it is assumed that the same laws apply in the models of the early Universe as in the modern world. It is al¬lowed to change the world constants, but the types of connections remain unchanged, the Friedman model is projected onto the era of inflation.
There is another form of reductionism, which runs like a red thread both throughout physics and throughout society. If the moon falls from above, we are looking for a button with the inscription "destroyer of moons". In physics, nobody knows what a charge is. This is a button that must be pressed to explain a limited number of phenomena (electrodynamics is not meant, but, for example, hypercharge or color). It is only known that mass is a qualitatively different button in comparison with a charge, since it can be split, there is no unit mass, and, therefore, the equations with mass cannot be made dimensionless, in contrast to electrodynamics, where it is possible to measure the charge in the charges of an electron, and the speed - at the speeds of light. There is no button in thermal phenomena either. A charged electron can interact as a unit with a vacuum. You can enter a test charge or mass. But, just as it is impossible to write down the law of conservation of thermal energy (the first law of thermodynamics) in differential form or to connect it through the Hamiltonian formalism with the homogeneity of time or symmetries of space, so it is impossible to represent the heat charge. Caloric does not exist, no hidden parameters or summation of energies will give a qualitative difference between a ther-modynamic system and a mechanical one, for example, irreversibility of processes.
According to the definitions given by R. von Bertalanffy (1973), a sys¬tem is a complex of interacting components, or: a set of elements that are in certain relationships with each other and with the environment. In the standard definition, a system is a set of elements in relationships and con¬nections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity.
The definition of F.I.Peregudov and F.P. Tarasenko also adds little: a system is a set of interrelated elements, isolated from the environment and interacting with it as a whole.
In these definitions, the system remains undefined, because these defi¬nitions include, except for some elementary particles, literally everything in the Universe, starting with baryons and ending with stellar superclusters. Consequently, the so-called systems approach, systems analysis based on these definitions are meaningless verbiage.
To a certain extent, this approach is brought to life by the development of electronics, endowing electronic circuits, in particular robots, with human qualities - a kind of religion that brings the best qualities of a person outside of a person and places these qualities in heaven. Electronic systems are important for the observer, but from the point of view of the development of the Universe they are not systems, their structures are not distinguished. As we remember, Aristotle, in the spirit of teleology and rain, attributed the goal to moisten the soil for the harvest.
The main drawback of systems theory is an attempt to combine het¬erogeneous spheres that are described by different sciences, while the understanding by specialists in the field of systems analysis that there is a system in physics, chemistry, biology, especially in a society divided into classes, is completely absent, not let alone the fact that these sciences themselves are still far from united.
It would seem that synergetics describes physical, chemical, and bio¬logical processes, however, like the theory of probability, it describes only one side of the phenomena. Synergetics distinguishes self-organizing pro-cesses, the theory of probability operates with many of the same repetitive events. At the same time, in understanding systems, it is necessary to highlight their functional side - but not in the utilitarian-subjective sense, not for the observer. Substance - system № 1, decaying system, water cycle in nature - a process in a conserved system, № 2, coacervate - de¬veloping from simple to complex system, type № 3.
Let's give a new definition: a system is understood as a set of objects that has a SIGNIFICANT quality that is absent in a single one outside the given system (for example, a structure in the sense of G. Birkhoff) in a manifested form, which determines a specific type of functioning.
It is clear that the quality of statistics is inherent in the singular, but it manifests itself only in the system. However, this quality is different from the mass-charge quality. In the system of electrons (or their qualities, for example, spins), it is not a new "electronic" quality that manifests itself, but only the same statistical nature manifests itself. (In experiments of the early 80s, it was proved that Bell's inequality does not hold, therefore, hid¬den parameters do not exist, although disputes over inequality and the search for hidden parameters continue to this day, if only because of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, therefore, not manifested qualities can¬not be hidden parameters.)
And yet, in physics, until now, in many cases, it was decided to repeat the experiment, which in history is present in a very controversial version, only as a comparison of different countries in similar conditions or as a rep¬etition of the same schemes of mass suggestion, which, by the way, often leads to opposite results. (As for the Universe as a whole, which is also unrepeatable, unique, the method of research is the extrapolation of the quotient into the whole, corrected by astronomical data.) But repeatability does not mean anything yet. Analysts at Kommersant-Daily are fond of plotting and evaluating the correlation coefficients R within the framework of regression analysis, even when it comes to detecting some connection between the electorates of various politicians using the R coefficient. Is it legal?
Consider the samples: the sizes of audiences and the average sizes of the ears of students in the classrooms. The machine will plot the depen¬dence and, if R is close to one, it can be assumed that there is a connec¬tion. However, R can be randomly close to unity, with a sufficiently large number of experiments the machine will show R close to zero. By itself, the Kolmogorov version of the theory of probability assumes the existence of a stable frequency with an infinite number of experiments. But another example: NMR spectra are taken in the laboratory. A shift in the spectra was found. It can be seen that the more flies in the room, the greater the shift. With a large number of experiments, the machine will show that there is a physical connection between the number of flies and the magnitude of the shifts, the correlation coefficient is close to unity. Although there is no correlation, there is a correlation between the number of flies and the temperature in the room and between the increase in temperature and the malfunctioning of the device.
In the sense of the methodology of science, it is interesting to cite as an example the experiments of S. E. Shnol, carried out over thirty years. Initially, a connection was found between colonies of bacteria, separated by an impenetrable partition, one colony was inoculated with the disease, the second showed signs of the same disease. Then the colonies were smashed - one in Pushchino, the other in Kiev. Then the experiment was repeated with chemical systems. Then with radioactive samples. If the Geiger counters were turned on simultaneously, then the deviations from the Gaussian energy distribution of electrons in Pushchino and Kiev coin¬cided. True, not at all seasons. Attempts by Eidus (Institute of Biophysics in Pushchino) to find a connection with the location of stars or any global atmospheric and geological factors ended in failure.
The existence of a Gaussian and other distributions, as Shnoll himself explains, means the existence of a special connection between objects (some researchers believe that this is a non-physical connection, and sta-tistical physics, therefore, is not physics at all). It follows from the above experiments that there is another connection, which is not described by the apparatus of the theory of probability.
It is possible that Shnol, through many experiments, discovered space-time inhomogeneities in various positions of the Earth in the Solar System, since the theory of probability reflects the symmetry of space, but this is a different matter.
Such a connection is not exclusive: for example, causally unrelated electrons in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment turn out to be de¬pendent on each other. The most general formulation was given by Lenin in the Philosophical Notebooks: "The causal connection, which we usually understand, is only a part of the universal connection." (The reversal of time, the hypothesis of which is considered by some researchers, actually retains the type of the causal structure of the world). The lack of the nec¬essary repeatability arising from the causal structure makes it impossible to formulate the concept of "experiment" not only in biology, but even in pharmacology. Timofeev-Ressovsky said about the same: "Nature cannot be an automaton with a single formula, where a person has nothing to do," about the same Goethe: "In life, it is about life, and not about some of its goals."
Thus, natural sciences indicate that attempts to formalize historical de¬terminism in mathematical form are incorrect.

Laplace's determinism in society

The impossibility of reducing biology and history (Akchurin, seeking in mathematical models suitable for describing biological systems, Bonifatius Kedrov, covering chemistry with quantum mechanics, etc.) or attempts to use the methodology of biology in history led to the revival of sensational¬ist ideas. A kind of intuitive determinism in the spirit of Bergson reappears, where the phenomenon is understood by ideation (Husserl), or meditation, a process inherent in the teacher (mahatma). An exceptionally strong ob¬jection to rational knowledge from the standpoint of materialist dialectics can be found in K. A. Svasyan [15]. Such phenomena as the psyche, the state of a person, partly expressed in art, through which history is mani¬fested, can be comprehended, as Bakhtin believed, only in communica¬tion, therefore, in cognition of subjective reality, one cannot in principle do without a teacher.
Alas, predictions based on idealistic ideas, as a rule, do not come true, a vivid example is Spengler's prophecies. The forecasting of the leading economists, Galbraith or Friedrich Hayek, does not justify itself either. The various facts about the ability to predict during sleep are realistic, but they are not history. "Predictions" of Nostradamus, Blavatsky, or modern sooth¬sayers like Paul Globa, invented by the journalists of Edgar Cayce's or Vanga's prophecies in actual fact - media falsifications - in comparison with the impressionist Marxist (phenomenological, based on the logic of communist movements) prophecy, revolutionary Trotsky, who in 1938 pre¬dicted the collapse of the USSR.
A number of economic problems can be formulated in the old statistical paradigm, for example, as optimization of the preparation and transporta¬tion of concrete in a probabilistic description of the process [10]. Today, models of this type, as well as the theory of catastrophes, are success¬fully applied in local problems of stock exchange games. Previously, the English school of statistical methods dominated in economics (Pearson, Fisher; see also [11]. Today, there are known attempts at computer analy¬sis of options for the development of the industry (Leontiev, USA) and the territorial economic complex (A. Raskopin, G. Kashevarova, Perm). Un-fortunately, in their models there is only a certain zoological mechanism of self-development of production, without taking into account social dynam¬ics, and A. Raskopin considers his models not as an obligatory formula for the life of an urban planning complex, but only as a tool for determining a number of options, and understands that the elimination of social dynamics is The criticism of the method is given, for example, in the works of B.G. Ploshko [12], S.M. Sargsyan, G.B. Yuzbashyan [13], B.G. Mirkin [14] and a number of other authors.
Sargsyan and Yuzbashyan note: "Before the implementation of the in¬terregional optimization of the country's development model, it is impossi¬ble to determine the closing costs for each type of product for each region. on the bottom ... "(" Identification and formation of options for the dynamic development of the inter-sectoral complex in the national economy "," Inte¬ger formulation of the model of optimal territorial planning for the develop¬ment of the economy of the region, divided into districts "). That is, we have the same picture: for the formation of a model, a limitation is necessary, but for a limitation, a model must be assumed. Try to build a model of the dy¬namics of the country's economy without the dynamics of the intra-regional one, but the intra-regional dynamics is understandable only if the dynamics of the whole are known. We return to the fact that we do not know the es¬sential factors of historical development.
On the other hand, "the interpretation of the mathematical concept of sampling, writes Mirkin, as a collection of randomly selected objects, is not always obvious and accurate." The point is that "the random mechanism must be modeled by the researcher himself" (p. 217). Mirkin gives an ex¬ample of an incorrect forecast of the results of the presidential elections in the United States before the war: the opinion poll was conducted using the telephone book, so the event could not be accidental. The fact that the event is not accidental can only be verified after the experiment. Let the sample be random, but testing statistical hypotheses about socio-eco¬nomic observations in canonical terms of confidence significance levels in many cases does not make any sense (the example of flies, B.I.) ... all the same, the question of the dependence of signs is decided by a willful way.
The key to understanding is not an increase in the number of experi¬ments, but culture, defined as the possession of a physical projection of the logic of nature. Only a necessary connection, a tendency, makes sense. Understanding this, which, in our opinion, is absent from the developers of evolutionary computer models, allows us to approach a more specific formulation of the problem of determinism in history.

Statistical approach

Let's take a closer look at physical determinism in history.
The social system, like many physical systems, is sometimes statistical. Examples of using the theory of probability in describing the mechanism of Mendel's genetic inheritance and the work of a telephone exchange can be found at least in P. Whitl [16]. According to probabilistic laws, psychiatric hospitals are filled, there is a statistical regularity of citizens getting hit by cars (since there is a physical connection, both of them move in the same plane, plus inattention, ignorance of traffic rules by both, drunkenness and those, and others. These are conditions that do not oblige a citizen to get hit by a car. He gets there according to a different law. An accident is the intersection of endless logical chains).
The fact of the applicability of the theory of probability in sciences other than physics, gave rise to the assertion that thermodynamics is not physics in general, like the equation of heat conduction. It has the first derivative with respect to time, while in all other fundamental equations of physics, the second derivative appears. In any case, the existence of the heat con¬duction equation indicates the identity of time in various forms of motion of matter and testifies against the assertion of the non-physicality of statistics (and also against a special biological time: statistical time and physical time are related by a system of equations, and there are no experimental data where the identity of times would be violated. Although the second law of thermodynamics itself does not have derivatives with respect to time. This point is an obstacle, in particular, in the generalization of thermody¬namics and gravitation. Schemes for formulating the second law of ther¬modynamics in terms of the Hamiltonian formalism have not yet yielded tangible results (see, for example, [17]).
Of course, for statistical purposes, symmetry is also necessary, symme¬try of space (for example, in order for the distribution to have a maximum of 50%, the coin must be symmetrical). If we try to choose not two, but three or more possible options (or we poorly mix, say, seeds of red and yellow flowers before planting in a flower bed, then they will grow in spots, the size patterns of which are not described by the theory of probability), we get fractional dimensions in p-adic theories. It is curious that the p-adic integral describing Brownian processes corresponds to the SU(2) symmetry group. One could try, by analogy with mechanics, to connect the conservation law in thermodynamics with symmetry. However, as far as classical dissipative systems are concerned, the presence of spatial symmetry, which is only a condition for the conservation of momentum, still does not make it possible to use the variational principle.
The problem is similar to that arising in the generalization of gravity and quantum field theory (QFT), in particular, the standard temperature technique in the theory of many particles (see [18]). It cannot be resolved in supersymmetric models either. The gravitational field breaks the spatial symmetry: already in the special theory of relativity (SRT) in the 4-vec¬tor of displacement there is an additional time component. The classical theory of probability implies precisely spatial symmetry, for example, the symmetry of a coin toss. Consequently, the gravitational field violates the axiomatics of the theory of probability, and with it the logic of probabilistic determinism and modal logic in general. That is, there are difficulties in us¬ing statistical methods already within physics.
If we nevertheless assume a priori that there are a number of periods in history described by the theory of probability (with some kind of spiral symmetry), an event in history must be defined as the preparation of condi¬tions Z and the effect <A> on object H under conditions of Z. Conditions Z should be an order of magnitude more severe than <A> and H: the experi¬menter should not be able to toss a coin so that it always falls, for example, in tails, i.e. should not know all the reasons affecting the coin, only in this case a statistical pattern will appear. So, roughly speaking, the event
E = Z + AH
If we know what will fall out, i.e. if we know how to toss, then we are talking about another event. If we talk about the result in an event (heads or tails), then it is necessary to supplement the result X with the method of tossing r, which splits into conditions Z and the type of tossing, which var¬ies (with a machine or hand), therefore, only conditions Z can be consid¬ered. If Z are such that P (X) = 1, then we always have the same result and knowledge about Z is complete. The more knowledge about Z, and from a series of repetitive Z ', Z' ', Z''' ..., more and more identical Z are prepared, the more P (X) tends to 1.It is clear that the difference in Z is limited if we understand by Z a set of state parameters that still need to be defined as parameters of the state of the socio-ethnic system. If the difference in Z is comparable to Z, then we cannot even approximately indicate whether this or that result is possible, based on the theory of probability. In gen¬eral, we must be prepared for the fact that only a limited number of phe¬nomena are described by probability. "And, finally, since you do not think that every body / Smell and sound emits, then it comes out undoubtedly / That it is impossible to attribute sound or smell to everything." (Lucretius, "On the nature of things", 830). In this case, the concept of probability is meaningless, but this does not mean that there is no possibility of describ¬ing an event using other characteristics (quantitative or qualitative) of the random. For example, you can determine: for "approximately" equal, but rather rough (Z (i,j) - Z (m,n)<< Z) and unknown to the experimenter Z in cases of the type of a coin P (X) = 1/2. Moreover, complete knowledge of Z is impossible, however, changing the experiment, recognizing Z, we abol¬ish spontaneity, introduce a monopoly. Thus, returning to [6], in the study, in any case, whether the epoch is described by the probabilistic method or not, it is necessary:
I. Determine the necessary, essential points of Z (conditions). Note the neglect of conditions in Stalinism and Trotskyism. For the former, the dic¬tatorship of the proletariat and socialism are possible at any stage in the development of capitalism; the second complements the external condi¬tions: a world revolution, but the level of productive forces is unimportant, the proletarian consciousness is assumed to be the determining factor. That is, it is not social being that determines social consciousness, but the socialist (dictatorial) superstructure governs social matter.
S. Smith argues that "Marx had no theory at all ... The goal of his forty years of work was not at all to establish a system of ideas that could ex¬plain the world" [19]. However, in contrast to himself, he writes: "The fol¬lowers of Marx ... like the materialists of the XVIII century, presented the social world as a type of complex mechanism, the parts of which interact according to open laws. The revolutionary party knows the secret of these laws ..." Smith does not understand Marxism and identifies it with mecha¬nism, which is the opposite and identity of the Trotskyist-Stalinist voluntarism.
II. Before entering the data into the table, it is necessary to highlight the assumed necessary connections (which we are going to establish and investigate). If we have in mind commodity-money relations, then it is ob-vious that knowledge of Z does not at all cancel the old division of labor. Secondly, the leader cannot know Z, because Z is formed by the entire socio-ethnic system: alienation is universal. In order to more fully embrace Z, the apparatus of owner-managers must grow. Further, in order to pre¬serve himself as an elite, he must stop growth and push out echelons of candidates for managers. At the same time, mediating economic functions and, due to the impossibility of embracing Z, the apparatus collapses. This is exactly what happened in the USSR.
It is obvious that the presentation of history as a struggle of classes, which was the most effective generalization, nevertheless reduces the general to the abstract particular. The class struggle turns out to be di-vorced from evolution, while in evolution itself progress as an ascent from the simple to the complex and regression turn out to be indefinite. Despite the apparent (due to its extensiveness) technical progress, labor is still partial: professionalism as mastery of logic turns into "professional cretin¬ism" in the process of de-objectification. And not only in the case of manual labor. The programmer begins to think like a machine, which makes it im¬possible to adequately assess the social situation. Only because of this it is impossible to talk about the coverage of all historical conditions by a narrow social (party) group. (Obviously, we are talking about this type of identity of phenomenon and essence, about which L. Tolstoy said: "In the future, literature will not be needed - life will be more interesting than books." Of course, the description of each atom in a crystal is not part of the traditional science, and this is impossible. However, imagine that each of them is a person.). It is easy to see that the "romantic" understanding of the qualitative transition (Trotskyism, anarchism, Stalinism) concerns only changes in working conditions, changes in social forms, but does not affect the qualitative change in the content of labor. This is the other extreme in understanding historical determinism.
It is possible, of course, to think that the nature of labor is being trans¬formed in an evolutionary way, but in practice modern technologies not only lead to replenishment of the reserve army of labor, but produce an army of push-button workers with the same depersonalization and aliena¬tion of partial labor, and also displace skilled labor in service sector with labor degradation.
On the other hand, modern social democratic and liberal currents focus on changing the nature of labor from above, that is, a competent group fol¬lowed by the masses, while the subjects of history are classes. Therefore, the conditions of the "experiment" are left aside. (We will return to the subject of history below.) Even Ilyenkov ignored the nature of labor. conveyor, values of the highest order appeared ("Philosophy and Culture").
In fact, it is obvious that the content and nature of labor are related to each other. For example, creative work is not only obtaining something new with the need to define something new. It is associated with the involve-ment in the management of what is the planning of the whole, the general, in miniature, isolated in the planes of science or art. Or: to overcome the non-creative nature of labor, it is necessary to redistribute social funds.
It would seem that the content of labor rises from the abstract to the concrete, more and more creative. The share of living labor per unit of labor power is declining. The amount of required working time is reduced. But people don't change. On the contrary, the number of victims is growing from war to war, from ecology to ecology. The increasing complexity of the economic mechanism inevitably leads to an increase in the alienation of workers from management (to the polarization of the population, but not to the emergence of a middle class throughout the entire class), despite the increase in the number of workers with higher education in the 80s.
It should be remembered that the contradiction between labor and capi¬tal in material form fades into the background after October 1917. Although the upward trend in wages was clearly outlined in the last century, so the classics abandoned the thesis of the absolute impoverishment of the pro¬letariat. It is removed within the capitalist mode of production - after the top could not manage absolutely impoverished workers who could not produce anything but low-quality non-competitive goods. The controversy was re¬solved through a reformist change in working conditions. And not with the filing of a group of competent economists - the "idea" of increasing work¬ers' wages and improving working conditions and reproduction of labor was prompted by the same October (that is, someone's practical activity).
The contradiction is being transformed, even Bakunin wrote that the privilege of education is enough for the bourgeoisie to maintain its position.
Obviously, the antithesis between the growth of concrete labor and the growth of alienation from management and changes in the nature of labor intensifies to a contradiction. "The upper classes will not be able to," since the apparatus will not be able to cover all the wealth of economic ties, and will be forced to "share," "the lower classes will not want to," since the material form of exploitation in developed countries will soon be finally overcome. Reproduction of labor power increasingly requires a different nature of labor, therefore, overcoming alienation from management in or¬der to change the nature of labor. This, in turn, requires universal higher education, the funds for which are forced out: in Canada, trade unions are fighting for universal education for workers, in France there are power¬ful demonstrations against elite schools to redistribute money for a higher level of universal secondary education, in Lebanon in December 1996, the protesters also demanded universal secondary education. The top may not be able to, but they cannot be willing to share. i.e,
III. it is necessary to understand that in the old scientific paradigm (namely: in the conditions of the old division of labor into those who think and those who do) it is impossible to encompass Z. It is only possible, having risen above clearly unknown conditions - after all, every single his¬torical information has been obtained and presented by representatives of individual social groups, but not of the whole society as a whole, which, moreover, does not represent a whole due to the same division of labor, to find some "thermodynamic »Patterns in the past or take a step away from the old understanding of historical patterns. That is, there is no possibility of forecasting.
On the other hand, overcoming the anarchy of social life, we are trying to establish certain patterns, for example, how to live better, more profit¬ably if we follow them, that is, cancel the accidental thing that is called individual independent thinking and action. Let us recall how Labriola, Plekhanov, Lukach and even Ilyenkov understood dialectics: as the most general laws of being and thinking, therefore, pouring out of a bath with water and a child - for a person it is the deviations from the abstract, aver¬aged general that are important, on the contrary, the universal in a specific deviation, which Ilyenkov considered insignificant (see, for example, "Dia-lectical Logic" or "Art and the Communist Ideal"). Even worse:
IV. as we understood from the criticism of the statistical method, it is im¬possible to establish a pattern prior to experiment. It is established by will. The actual statistical (mathematical) regularity does not have to coincide with the historical necessary connection. Where is the exit?

About the so-called activity
Either we know how the social system moves, according to some objec¬tive laws that do not depend on consciousness, and therefore we cannot influence the situation (fatalism), or we bring something into the system of laws so that we get the opportunity to influence the movement of the system.
What are we bringing? Mathematically not formalized activity of the su¬perstructure, consciousness, will.
The necessary conditions of the revolution are not canceled, the ba¬sis inexorably brings the superstructure into line with itself, instead of the world revolution, capitalism is legalized in the USSR.
Lenin, contradicting Kautsky, restricts: the introduction not from the side of the government "going to meet the proletariat", but into the government subordinate to the proletariat. In general, the role of Social Democracy is only to help organize the proletariat. As Marx emphasized: Communists can only ease the pain of childbirth for society, but they cannot give birth for society.
Obviously, the quality of the subjects of history is objective for the revo¬lution - but not the activity of the working class.
If we focus on the primacy of social being, then the subjects of history and individual individuals cannot radically change anything. If the role of activity is reduced to facilitating the childbirth of society, then they can give birth even without active ones. If the appearance of active people in society is a pattern, then everything is natural. Therefore, everything is accidental.
The filling of the dialectical unity "natural - accidental" with the sim¬plest specifics immediately leads romantics to a logical contradiction. The facts are that the old understanding of activity as a scheme "the party that understands the laws of motion the most, gives the program the masses penetrate and follow the program, the party comes to power and makes economic transformations" does not work. That is, it is necessary to reas-sess not only the role of the party, but also determinism in history - as in the natural sciences. Prigogine argues that the mechanistic understanding of determinism has migrated to all special sciences, and, consequently, to philosophy.
Society cannot take a step without planning, whether the plan is being implemented or not is the second question. Of course, Ilyenkov is right in particular: the most general laws of motion of the external world coincide with the laws of thinking. From the fact that it is light during the day and dark at night, it follows that the world cannot be arranged in any way. We shoot at the Turk, and the Turk is killed because he was hit by a bullet. Naturally, it was only possible to achieve such a brilliant result through long-term social practice. However, it is enough to ask the question: how does the eye form an image of a Turk (and the eye creates a lot of false images before sculpting an adequate one (see, for example, [20]), as well as which part of the Turk's body was hit by a bullet, and we return the pre¬vious reasoning, because the distribution of bullets over the target has a Poisson character.
The equation of social movement, including the laws of society, must answer the question of what will happen to the system, taken under certain conditions, after a certain period of time. If we introduce the activity of sub¬jects, the equation should get the future that we would like to see. Then the inverse problem can be solved. It is necessary not only to determine the initial conditions for the desired future, but to change the real initial condi¬tions so as to get the picture we need in the future.
Here we know at best the method of change, which, moreover, changes depending on the circumstances. Added to this is the expectation that the conditions will "ripen" (either on their own or with the help of subjects) until the moment in time when there is only "obstetrics" left.
Is the problem still correct? For example, in the inverse problem of scattering or heat conduction, when it is necessary to determine the initial conditions from the final result, the solutions are unstable, but they can be obtained in principle. The situation is different in society.
On the one hand, if history is determined in the Cartesian spirit, there is no point in predicting (divining, etc.). On the other hand, if there is an equation of history, and we have received a solution of what will happen tomorrow, and if it is negative tomorrow, then with the available information the subject is able to avoid it tomorrow. So the social mathematical equa¬tion is false. History becomes non-deterministic. But only in the sense of mathematical formalization.

VI. Stochastic approach

A. Classification.
1) Laplace determinism: there is a point with initial parameters P (V, r, m, f). The future is derived from the present unambiguously.
2) Probabilistic-quantum: from P, regions of future values (V, r) are un¬ambiguously deduced.
3) Intuitive-prophetic: from communication with something or an un¬known way, the future is uniquely determined.
4) Cultural, civilizational (Toynbee), Marx: from the logic of a holistic culture (Marx includes the culture of production) a possible future is de¬termined. Earlier it was assumed that physicists, for example, are not only "spontaneous materialists", but since they own a part of the logic of nature, which cannot be formal, thus also "spontaneous dialectics" (Ilyenkov, "Phi¬losophy and Culture"). It was also assumed that dialectics brings together particular logics (A. Grigoriev, following Bibler et al., Preferred "polylectics", see [21]). Meanwhile, none of the logics is undeveloped, especially biol¬ogy and history. Regarding the Marxian method, it should be noted that in the last century, the relationship between the subject of history (class) and the superstructure (for example, the party) was determined due to the un¬derdevelopment of production in the spirit of Bernstein-Kautsky (for more details, see [22]). The idea of the last century about the physical impos¬sibility of self-development of the working class, the need to bring the party (intellectual) consciousness (meaning the consciousness of the external social group) from "situational was raised to the rank of conceptual."
Therefore, it makes no sense to talk about modern unified logic, as well as culturology in its real meaning. The proof of this is the armada of politi¬cal soothsayers.
5) Cluster approach in sociology.
6) Pluralistic approach. Yu. Olsevich [23] suggests looking for the logic of social science, in particular, economics, generally bypassing the spe¬cifics of correlating theory with reality. Proceeding from the fact that op-posite doctrines appear in completely identical social conditions, Olsevich declares that "the pluralism of theories is precisely the locator that allows observing the internal multidimensional changeable space of the economic system." That is, pluralism itself is a reflection of reality, although in reality it is "unobservable", pluralism belongs to the elite. The rest of society is dictated by the media.
Olsevich counts Keynes and Walter Euken as his predecessors (Fun¬damentals of National Economy, 1940). Many theories are being inves¬tigated, the discrepancy between theories of reality is being questioned (and indeed the theory is built on the basis of empiricism and reflects the level of social development. Or its side). For example, the degradation of the Russian economy to a raw material appendage of the developed coun¬tries, according to Olsevich, should lead to the resuscitation of the parcels of physiocrats.
Is it permissible to ignore the connection between social theory and what really exists - with class interests? To mix into a single operator po¬sitions belonging to antagonistic social strata and to consider a specific theory as one of its eigenvalues, projections, which alone are, in contrast to the operator itself, observable?
In this case, the mechanistic understanding of determinism has led to the reduction of social dynamics to the group properties of a number of the¬ories, known only to the degree of proximity of theorists to the elite. But Ol-sevich's idea is not interesting already because theories are mixed, firstly, dissatisfying practice, and secondly, deliberately built within the framework of the old understanding of determinism, while practice insistently advises us to come to a new one.
The anarchist and neo-positivist Paul Feyerabend argues much more transparently, from different positions and about the same thing (see [24]). The premise of his objection to "methodological coercion" is an objection to scientific bureaucracy: when choosing theories, only non-theoretical mo¬tives prevail, just the supporters of one theory by any means defeat the 160 supporters of the other. Who exactly wins? Who is close to the elite. I.e. we are talking about an objection to liberalism and its identity - Stalinism: "Idealism believes that practice ... is only raw material, which is shaped by reason. Practice is capable of creating in itself the elements of reason, but only in a random and unsystematic way "(p. 470). Secondly, reason is as¬cribed to a narrow group of persons: "... we are gradually inspired that such theories (ie theories needed to solve social problems, BI) should be devel¬oped by specialists, ie. intellectuals; intellectuals determine the structure of society, intellectuals explain what is possible and what is impossible, intellectuals tell everyone what to do "(p. 471).
At the same time, "problems are solved not by specialists ... but by in¬terested persons," while the desired democracy "is a gathering of mature people, and not a bunch of fools, led by a small group of smart people." Therefore, Feyerabend, quoting Lenin abundantly, asserts that "theoretical anarchism is more humane and progressive than its alternatives based on law and order" (p. 142).
Feyerabend, unlike Olsevich, takes as a fact not the manifestation of class interests, but the very dependence of social theory on social interest, considering it as a phenomenon, but takes a step "for the fact", declaring it to be a reflection of the actual development of all science, not only social. Cognition as a whole, according to Feyerabend, is random, the develop¬ment of science is chaotic. Moreover, he, like Olsevich, uses examples of correct "incorrect" hypotheses, but from the natural sciences. In fact, pluralism or anarchism is a reflection of something very different. The point is that in the course of dialectical development, society is not always at the points of revolution, i.e. in moments of exacerbation of contradiction, integ¬rity (totality, in the words of Berdyaev). The working class of Russia in 1917 represented something unified, while today it is infinitely fragmented - for the anarchic period lasts, the period of accumulation of diversity.
Thus, Feyerabend, despite accurate observations, makes the mistake of denying determinism in history.
7) Synergetic, stochastic approaches, the approach of the theory of catastrophes.
For example, G. Bystray, D. Pivovarov [25], recalling that sociologists are unable to predict and even explain sharp changes in public opinion or the behavior of any social group, draw analogies in the behavior of a statistical ensemble described using the theory of catastrophes, originating from the general theory of systems by A. A. Bogdanov and L. von Berta¬lanffy. Social phenomena, the authors believe, like synergetic ones, are essentially non-linear, while most sociological models are based on the ideas of linearity and convexity. The authors believe that "in the methodol¬ogy of sociological research, the theory of catastrophes and the principle of stochasticity should take their proper, if not leading, place" (p. 159). Of course, one cannot pose a bare problem: there is a method, so shouldn't it be transferred to the area of problems that are not native to him? But syn-ergetics arose as a combination of problems that were not related to each other in physics (billiards, pendulums with friction), chemistry (Belousov- Zhabotinsky reactions) and biology. Quantum mechanics can be viewed as a method of group theory in describing the behavior of particles, and GRT - as a rewriting of Newtonian mechanics in the pseudo-Riemannian metric. Who is stopping the row from continuing?
B. Malinetskiy G.G. in his work "Nonlinear dynamics and" historical mechanics "[26], summarizing the research on this topic, notes that it is impossible to extrapolate the historical trajectory, since" the equilibrium is irreversibly violated. " It is unlikely that the latter can be considered a premise for thought: 1) there are laminar processes in history, 2) if the mat¬ter is only in the openness of the system, then sources can be introduced, 3) if the trajectory exists, then we need to talk not about extrapolation, but about finding patterns ... The leitmotif of Malinetskiy's work is obvious. He writes: "With the help of these concepts (historical materialism, the meth¬ods of Sartre, Jaspers, Popper; B.I.), it is not possible to build a bridge to the specific tasks that arise before the state and interstate associations in strategic planning ... After the meeting in Rio de "Janeiro, who showed that the concept of sustainable development, shared by the main historical actors, is absent, the need for such planning is difficult to question." I.e., services are offered to any political group. In fact, the concept was absent not only at the 1st "Global Forum" in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but also at the 2nd in Manchester in 1994, and at the 3rd in Istanbul in 1996 ... For example, in Manchester there were over 1,500 people, of which only 600 were delegates. But Malinetskiy oddly identified the main historical sub¬jects. Until now, subjects have been thought of as social strata or parties, but not their individual representatives.
As an argument in favor of the need to develop a unified formula for state (more precisely, party) programs, Malinetskii cites the work of A. An¬dreev and M. Lewandovsky [27], where "an analysis of the time series characterizing the strike activity ... process and identify the presence in this dynamics of a special period of chaos. "The work, as the authors them¬selves write, is "the first step in creating adequate mathematical models of the internal mechanisms of the development of social conflicts".
The statistics of strikes in the Vladimir province from 1895 to 1905 were studied. The following restrictions were introduced: 1) information is trans¬mitted through personal communication without the participation of pro¬fessional agitators (but there are workers who become agitators), 2) the constancy of the number of workers employed in production is assumed; 4) in a given locality; it is believed that the Vladimir region was not in the study period in a state of qualitatively accelerated development. The result obtained by stochastic methods is trivial: the authors noticed seasonal ac¬tivity of workers. V. Ponomarev, researching the strikes of 1988-90 in the USSR, noticed the same thing without resorting to mathematical models), which "makes it possible to supplement the missing historical facts."
Does the repetition of the result by Ponomarev mean confirmation of the adequacy of the method? After all, the conclusion about the localiza¬tion of the result within the Vladimir province suggested itself. There is no objection to the use of stochastic methods for the analysis of history. But if the climate has changed, or the workers, having learned about the Andreev-Lewandovsky method, decided to change their tactics?
Stochasticity, in contrast to the bifurcation of the transition from one limit cycle (an attractor, an equilibrium point near a pendulum or a circle, or a strange attractor in the three-dimensional case) and from a catastrophe, a sharp change with a known slow change in the parameter, means the fundamental unpredictability of the particle behavior. Small random devia¬tions of the initial conditions lead to exponential divergence of trajectories. Beams of trajectories G1, G2, G3, G0 emerge from the region G0 - the origin of coordinates. Due to random deviations, a particle enters each of the beams with probability P1, P2, and P3, respectively.163 Malinetskiy introduces jokers of the region inside G1, G2, G3 with Laplacian determinism. In G0 "the dominant role is played by volitional decisions that lead to paths with probabilities P1, P2, P3."
The scheme is somewhat similar to the one outlined in Mein Kampf. "Society is an amplifier," writes Malinetskiy, "of individual actions and thoughts." The proposed program is enough, and if you are in power, you can change the course of history. Society will strengthen. More precisely, the media will strengthen, the society, like an automatic machine, will re¬peat. Malinetskiy cites in confirmation the book by Ch. Snow "Two Cul¬tures", where the author writes: "... one of the difficult problems is the se¬lection and promotion of talented, energetic people to lead society at the top of the social hierarchy."
Also quoted is the work of the Trotskyist D. North [28]. North conducted a comparative analysis of the economic development of Spain and Eng¬land, which, according to North, since the XV century have had similar economic indicators, and came to the conclusion that the organizational structures that "reflected at the time of the emergence of the traditions of society ... the alignment of political forces and the psychological state of the elite "(for Lenin:" the one who explains political actions by the character traits of a politician is a swindler ").
In order for the actions of a politician to be clear to the voter, it is pos¬sible to use the spin glass model. It allows one to take into account the influence of the media on public opinion, its polarization and consolidation, as well as provide for mass sobering up when the influence of the media ceases (Malinetskiy quotes [29]). In a word, society is understood as a Cartesian system, which, like Kozma Prutkov's horse, if snapped on the nose, flaps its tail.
In fact, it is obvious that the influence of the media is possible only when the employee is alienated from the means of production and working conditions. In this case, the intermediary between them (capital) is free to substitute mass media fetishes for real relations between people.
In general, the meaning of such theories is obvious: a group of com¬petent people determines how everyone will live. That is, the position of Ortega y Gasset [30], Keynes, modern social democrats, and finally, the CPRF, have been repeated without distortion. Obviously, it is necessary to reject the application of the "new thermodynamics" to the dynamics of society as unscientific, opportunistic.
You can also find a direct discrepancy: in order to get into the most ac¬ceptable region G (i), it is useless to write programs, a small deviation must be random, unknown. The main objection to the application of stochastics 164 to history, in fact to the stochastic plan, is the fact of the collapse of the plan in the USSR, starting with the first and ending with the last.
As for the work of Andreev-Lewandovsky, to a positive example of which Malinetskiy refers, there is a suspicion that the authors, instead of finding new historical facts from extrapolation, threw out of consideration a lot of existing ones: they were based on a more complete analysis of V. Bavykin, L. Borodkin and Yu. Kiryanov strike movement in Russia in 1895-1913.
In addition, the criticism of purely mathematical models is given above and previously given by Mirkin, Sargsyan and Sargsyan. The factors de¬termining the dynamics of strikes and the connection between them re-mained behind the scenes. The meaning of the work is absent, as well as the meaning of the machine's work to identify the relationship between the number of flies in the room and the shift of the NMR spectra. The au¬thors explain the shortcomings of the model (overestimated figures) by the shortcomings of the source and the need to consider even smaller territorial units (the latter, on the contrary, see above the link to Sargsyan and Yuzbashyan, it is impossible without knowledge of the dynamics as a whole. That is, the explanation is an obvious excuse).
But Lewandovsky and Andreev object to scientism, oppose abstract history divorced from people. "Creation," the Whitehead authors quote, "is the actualization of potentiality, and the process of actualization is an event of human experience ..." It would seem that there is one step to Marx's thesis about Feuerbach (if we add to the thesis a change in history not by philosophers, but by the masses, following Marx's formula: socialism is the living creativity of the masses, and understanding by creativity not only political activity). Unfortunately, they also have a liberal attitude. The authors reduce the analysis of living history to Popper's logic of the situa-tion: "For the historian, the actions, the history of which he deals with, are not spectacles given to observation, but a living experience that he must go through in his own mind; they ... can be cognized by him only because they are simultaneously subjective, that is, they are the actions of his own consciousness."
Of course, the authors would like to formalize historical causality, but they believe that 1) it is impossible to make predictions at a "critical point", since during this period a choice is made between different paths of devel-opment; 2) this choice is subjective, depends on one person or subject of history and can be analyzed only within the framework of the specific logic of the situation; 3) only tendencies can be formulated that include many paths.
The unsatisfactory transfer of the ideology of statistics or synergetics 165 to society is explained by the well-known fact of the qualitative difference between the laws of society and natural science laws. Transference ideolo¬gists operate in the spirit of reductionism, although biology is not reduced to chemistry, and chemistry is not reduced to physics.
Let's say a mathematical model should be supplemented by the specif¬ics of the situation. This is the understanding of many Marxists: the general scheme has already been discovered, it remains to fill it with the specifics of the moment. However, how exactly the choice takes place and whether the result is the embodiment of the will of the subject is not explained.
In addition, due to the disintegration of the productive forces, the most productive Marxist scheme has not been overcome, although it is based on the old understanding of dialectics, which brings together the logic of the sciences of a century ago. This is also manifested in the understanding of overcoming alienation by reducing the necessary labor to a vanishingly small amount (Capital, Volume III), to equalization in the form of a change in labor (formal equality), and not by transforming the socially necessary labor itself.
Marx, unlike Popper (or Friedrich Schlegel), could hardly have reduced living experience to "experiencing the mind" or "actions of consciousness" instead of social practice. Or consider the general scheme unchanged. Let's say we supplement the diagram with a situation. If the result of the ad¬ditive changes radically, then there is no scheme. If it is insignificant, then the Popper addition does not eliminate fatality. Meanwhile, it is not that the additive, but the random deviation from the general contains the essen¬tial, these are not small fluctuations over equilibrium, narrowed down to the law. The essence is in individuality, in deviation from the general. The thesis about Feuerbach, which contains the definition of the essence of a person, through the external, like the intersection of social lines, is contra¬dictory, which reflects, rather, not a contradiction in the scheme noted by A. B. Grigoriev, but a social contradiction (Heidegger's "technicalization of the soul" or Marx's depersonalization abstract work as dominant, see [31]).
Marx is forced to state that by virtue of depersonalizing socially neces¬sary labor, the party of the class is made up of representatives of other social strata (see [22]). However, the consolidation of situational thought at the conceptual level logically leads to the same Bernstein-Kautsky scheme: a group of competent people gives a program and forms a gov¬ernment "meeting the proletariat halfway."
This practice has become obsolete today, although the armies of the "active" have not yet realized that in the dialectical pair "class-party" the class is primary, the party is secondary.

On the relationship between changes in social conditions and the nature of work

In the aforementioned work "The strike movement of Russia in 1895- 1913. Bavykin, Borodkin and Kiryanov tried to establish a rigid connection between the structure, connections and development of industry and the change in the economic situation of the proletariat. " Although the very posing of the question of the level of economic development is positive - against the Trotskyist-Stalinist-anarchist romanticism with the denial of the necessary conditions for the revolution. Lewandovsky and Andreev move away from this specifics, wanting to distinguish their point of view from the work of Bavykin et al. [27].
However, in general, the mathematical formalization of history, the se¬lection of essential factors run into the following difficulties:
1) Incomplete knowledge of events, from which researchers also ex¬clude conditions.
1a) Lack of acceptable time coordinates, it doesn't matter if we want Laplace determinism, quantum, or whatever.
1b) The rudimentary understanding of determinism already in the natu¬ral sciences. The world is not arranged in such a way as to determine the future by owning the initial conditions. This is an incorrect formulation of the question, just as one cannot ask which of the two slits a particle will fly into if we want to have an interference pattern on the screen; a particle is not so arranged as to be considered structureless or with a structure identi¬cal to a macroscopic body.
The identification of statistical or stochastic patterns is impossible, be¬cause
2) historical and economic parameters are not immanent properties of objects (for example, the value of goods), as mass is a property of a parti¬cle. Unlike Toynbee or Gumilyov, Marx analyzed a holistic process, linking political and economic factors with historical ones, although he was far from economic fatalism.
3) For example, in a quantum experiment, the way the device and the subject change (under the influence of a particle) are unchanged. In the process of objectification-de-objectification, the subject of history becomes identical with the object (not in Popper's sense) and changes itself: classes arise and are destroyed.
4) Unlike electrons, which in the system must be identical to each other, despite the fact that individual consciousness depends even on the mass media, not to mention the primacy of production relations, from the begin¬ning of the emergence of society there is a special parameter: the unique¬ness of the "I". The growth of the creative principle in labor (the ascent of labor from the abstract to the concrete) means an ever greater uniqueness of the product of socially necessary labor. But there are no quantitative pa¬rameters to measure the uniqueness of the manifestation of "I". Does this mean that the emancipation of labor is a transition to the realm of free will, that is, the disappearance of any social determinism at all?
5) The consequence of paragraphs 2), 3) and 4) is the difference from natural science laws that these laws are objective, independent of the ob¬server (although they change over time). In history, subjects change social laws. A regularity that does not depend on the subject exists only in periods between radical changes in social relations and productive forces.
It would seem that even the history of Peter I convinces of the opposite: nothing significant would have changed if he had not come to power. He only continued the traditional expansionist policy of Russia, and began with defeats in military campaigns in the same way as his rival Vasily Golit¬syn, who, moreover, was going to abolish serfdom and allot land to the peasants (see at least [32]). In history, contingency, despite the ridicule of Marx and Russell, hastens after the Hegelian idea and unfolds like a fatal necessity. Is human life really predetermined, as in the physiological ex¬ample given by Haken: if you simultaneously wave the fingers of different hands, placing them in parallel, then regardless of the will, with an increase in frequency, a jump occurs, the fingers, instead of parallel movement, will move towards each other.
Is Saint Augustine really right in opposing the skeptics who asserted the possibility of only probabilistic knowledge (now we can say - not Lapla¬cian determinism) - no matter that the methodology chosen by Augustine for comprehending the truth is Holy Scripture or divine enlightenment ("Against the Academicians"). The point is in principle: is the world really arranged according to Tolstoy: "the worm gnaws the cabbage, but before it perishes" and "not by our mind, but by God's judgment"? Do I need to judge Annushka for spilling oil? If you do not put the restrictive second "shoe", a train accident can occur. And when it happens, it seems that all the little things begin to play a threateningly fatal natural role. All reasons wind up around one moment into an extraneous contradiction, which is presented as the main one. It turns out that the more holistic the research, the tougher the "primacy of the general over the particular" and the less room for chance. In the limit, infinite wisdom - Sophia - will always give an accurate forecast, and the probability, according to Locke, is just "the ap¬pearance of a correspondence based on not entirely reliable conclusions."
It would seem that with ignorance of the laws, everything is accidental, and, therefore, rigidly regular, fatal. But is it possible to derive historical cat¬egories when they have not yet matured in society? For example, Aristotle was unable to deduce the category of value with undeveloped commodity-money relations (see Ilyenkov, "Dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx's Capital"). But this pattern cannot be such as to manifest itself independently of consciousness.
Fyodor Dostoevsky argued most strongly about the existence of a pat¬tern in history.
First - an objection to the law standing above man, even if it comes from God, according to the principle of morality. Alexey Karamazov denies the existence of God (and his law!) If the law humiliates a person (deper-sonalizes, teaches, etc.) ("The Brothers Karamazov"). The existence of a lawmaker is illogical: "Let the consciousness be kindled by the will of a higher power ... and let it suddenly be ordered by this higher power to be destroyed, because there it is ... it’s necessary ... Can’t you just eat me without demanding praise from me that eaten me? Will anyone really be offended that I don't want to wait two weeks? I don't believe it; and it would be much more accurate to assume that my insignificant life, the life of an atom, was needed here to replenish some universal harmony as a whole, for some plus and minus ... how every day the life of many creatures will need to be sacrificed, without whose death the rest of the world cannot stand ... but ... if once I have already been given to realize that 'I am', then what do I care about the fact that the world is arranged with errors and that otherwise it cannot stand? " ("Idiot").
In essence, a person is not a "tablet" or "piano keys"; he does not need someone's will (or fate), but an independent desire. Sometimes whim or destruction, and not at all benefits and benefits. Moreover, one can theoret¬ically talk about this problem ad infinitum ("Notes from the Underground").
That is, the next step should be the transition to a thinking and active electron, to changing the law in practical social activity. That is, the pattern can be found only in one's own social practice, primarily political, which corresponds to the Marxian scheme (not referring to bad practice).
Further, Dostoevsky's objection to the already impersonal, natural law follows: "... - Ugliness and chaos are everywhere, madam, you will find," said Lebedev's nephew, significantly, however, puzzled. - Yes, not like that! Not the same, priests, as you have now, not like that! - Lizaveta Prokofievna chimed in gloatingly, as if in hysterics. - Yes, will you leave me, she shouted at those who persuaded her, no, since you yourself, Evgeny Pavlych, have just announced that even the defense lawyer himself an¬nounced at the trial that there is nothing more natural than to kill six people out of poverty, so it really is the last times have come. I haven’t heard that yet. Now everything has been explained to me!" ("Idiot"). There is no talk of an objection to fatalism: Dostoevsky, as if on purpose outside of time, confronts objective and subjective causes, systemic and accidental, when the contradiction between them in society has not yet matured.
Of course, we are not talking about imagining free floating in the uni¬verse, where any desires are fulfilled, where thoughts create the world. It is necessary to imagine the universe of people with the presence of abstract labor with the ensuing laws. Another thing is that abstract labor, as deter¬mining at the level of the universal, must give way to the concrete, creative.
It remains to combine practice with consistent theoretical approxima¬tions, to follow Descartes' advice: in order to know, you need to "pass"? Or, according to Feyerabend, "connect reason with practice"? To create the predicted by force, if there is no power to predict before experience? True, but only not in the divided social strata according to Bernstein-Kautsky, but in the same subject of history. There is a prohibition against stealing fire from the gods alone. The point is not in collective creativity (collective intel¬ligence does not exist) or in technical difficulties such as life expectancy, but in the impossibility of cognition by a narrow dependent social group in general.
Secondly, even God (king, general secretary or other owner) "does not foresee the future if we are endowed with will, or he is unjust if we are deprived of free will." (Lorenzo Valla, On Free Will). The prohibition can be formulated in the following anti-G;del form: it is impossible, being outside the relations of the system, to cognize the system. Let's turn the Marx¬ian thesis about Feuerbach: it is impossible not only to change the world outside of social practice, but also to understand and predict it (Augustine spoke about will, but a separate will is not enough to reveal the essence of man).
The second moment of non-participation, alienation, is a person's sepa¬ration of himself from his activities; it is obvious that there is a return to ani¬mal beingness, "naturalness", identification of oneself with one's activity at a new level, the transformation of man into a kind of thinking-acting super¬man.) When the contradiction between the need to reproduce labor force in the process of creative production and its impossibility ripens the identi¬fication of patterns, in particular, in history can be considered formulated.
It's a paradox, but the mechanics are such that only a soldier can pre¬dict the outcome of a war.
P. S. The article was written in 1997, in a truncated form was published in the journal "CLIO" (St. Petersburg, 1998, № 1 (4), P. 16-24), criticism of the transfer of the philosophy of synergetics to society was given; a few years later, Immanuel Wallerstein came up with the idea of transferring. The article is published in full for the first time.

References
1.Prigogine I. Questions of Philosophy. №6, 1991.
2. Ibid.
3. E. Mandel. Power and money. General theory of bureaucracy. M., "Economic Democracy", 1992.
4. S.G. Kara-Murza. New theory of revolution. The website "Internet against TV".
5. Natalia Melentyeva, General Theory of the Rebellion by Gred Berg¬flet. www/anarh.ru
6. A. Sarasov, On the silent people. Russia XXI. №5-6, 1996.
7. Ikhlov B.L. Revolt the City. Sight. №40, 1996.
8. Philosophy questions, №2, 1997.
9. Bakunin M.A. Philosophy, sociology, politics. M., Truth, 1989.
10. Sargsyan S.M., Sargsyan S.M., in collection of Mathematical mod¬eling in economics. Yerevan, 1979.
11. Mathematical modeling in economics, collection of sci. op. of the USSR Civil Code on Narobraz, Economic and Statistical Institute, 1992.
12. Ploshko B.G. On scientific directions in modern theory of statistics. M., Statistics, 1971.
13. Sargsyan S.M., Yuzbashyan G.B., in sb. Mathematical modeling in economics. Yerevan, 1979.
14. Mirkin B.G., in coll. Mathematical modeling in sociology. Novosi¬birsk, Science, 1977.
15. Svasyan K.A. Phenomenological knowledge. Yerevan, AS USSR, 1987.
16. Whittle P. Probability. M., Science, 1982.
17. Arnold V.I., Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. M., Sci¬ence, 1989.
18. Ikhlov BL Higgs vacuum in the gauge theory of gravitation. Abs. cand. diss., M., MSU, 1988.
19. Smith S., Marx’s Conception of Science. International Socialist Fo¬rum, August 1997, V.1, №1.
20. Porshnev B.F. On the beginning of human history: problems of paleopsychology. M., Thought, 1974.
21. Grigoriev A. Dialectical contradictions of the evolutionary process. Abs. diss., MSU, 1989.
22. Ikhlov B.L. Class and Party. Sight. № 40, 1996 or at VIBIR, Kiev, №1-2, 1996.
23. Olsevich Yu. Towards relativistic economic theory. Economic is¬sues. №6, 1997.
24. 23. 18. P. Feyerabend, Selected Works on the Methodology of Sci¬ence, M., Progress, 1986.
25. Bystray G., Pivovarov D. Non-equilibrium systems: integrity, effi¬ciency, reliability. Sverdlovsk, USU, 1989.
26. Malinetskiy G. G. Nonlinear dynamics and "historical mechanics". Social sciences and modernity. №2, 1997.
27. Andreev A., Lewandovsky M., in sb. "Mat. Modeling of historical processes", M., 1996.
28. North D. What Impedes Economic Growth. Chemistry and Life. №3, 4, 1994.
29. Dotsenko A.V. Spin glasses - new thermodynamics. Nature. №12, 1994.
30.Ortega y Gasset. Revolt of the masses.
31. Ikhlov B.L. Afterword. Sight. №38, 1996.
32. Valishevsky K. Peter the Great. M., IKPA, 1990.

DOI 10.34660/INF.2021.39.71.019
DOI 10.34660/INF.2021.26.76.020

ON THE METHODOLOGY OF NATURAL SCIENCES. NEO-POSITIVISM
Short essay

Introduction

The quintessence of positivism, starting with Auguste Comte – is the denial of philosophy under the guise of striving to make philosophy scientific, speculating on the real problems of modern science. A fundamental critique of this trend of ideology is given in Lenin's book “Materialism and Empirio-criticism”.
Neo-positivism emerged in the 20-30s of the XX century in Central Europe, became widespread in the United States and England, the largest representatives - R. Carnap, F. Frank, B. Russell, A. D. Ayer, K. Popper, S. Chase, A. Korzybsky.
Logical positivism became one of the foundations of the early analytical philosophy, the philosophy of language, and became the dominant bourgeois philosophy of science in the period between World War I and the Cold War, in Great Britain thanks to Ayer, in the United States-thanks to the members of the" Vienna Circle " who fled Europe during and after World War II.

Bertrand Russell in the work "Principia Mathematica" and Whitehead, in the study of the logical foundations of mathematics, used a new symbolic logic, gave it a philosophical meaning and attributed the status of a universal research methodology. From the old positivism represented by physicists, from the" elements of experience", by mathematicians and linguists, a step was taken towards the elements of language.
"A sentence can be understood if we know under what conditions it can be true. This means that not knowledge is required that a sentence is true or false, but knowledge of the circumstances that make it possible to establish its truth", - Wittgenstein wrote in 1921 y. in his “Logical - Philosophical Treatise”.
Indeed, the content of the slogan "All power to the Soviets" can be both reactionary when the Soviets are dominated by the Mensheviks, and progressive when it is dominated by the workers. But Wittgenstein does not understand the relative independence of the content of the sentence. The content of the sentence "The moon exists" is weakly dependent on subjective circumstances.

Logical positivism divides scientific propositions into analytical and synthetic ones. Analytical propositions are logically necessary and self-sufficient (for example: bodies are extended). The truth of synthetic sentences is established empirically (example: there is a book on the table). To prove the scientific nature of theories, verification is used, a procedure for verifying true knowledge, which no longer consists in experimental verification, but in reduction, in dividing complex sentences into protocol ones. The truth of protocol sentences is assumed to be absolutely certain, since it is assumed that it corresponds to the observed reality. The form of the protocol sentence is as follows: "N observed such and such an object at such and such a time and in such and such a place." Thus, the entire activity of the scientist is reduced to checking protocol proposals and their generalization. On the basis of this construction, the "Vienna Circle", led by Carnap, was engaged in the creation of a single scientific theory - "The Foundation of united science".

According to the construction of E. Sepir and B. Whorf, the organization, systematization, theorization and ontologization of the world are determined by the language system stored in the memory of a natural language. Semantics, grammar, and vocabulary of the language system suggest and dictate the forms of organization and theoretical development of the external world. Therefore, the ontological picture is subordinate to the language, and cognitive systems are determined by the variety of existing grammars and dictionaries. That is, if Aristotle spoke in Chinese or in the language of the Chau-Chu tribe, he would present a completely different picture of reality, with a different acceleration of the body would be attracted to the Earth, the center of the world would not be the Earth, but the coconut, etc.

American linguist and left-wing and even anti-American publicist Noam Chomsky criticizes the Sepir-Whorf constructions for universalism, sociolinguistic determinism, etc., but not for replacing the cause (the external world) with the effect (language). Chomsky gives language not only signal functions, as the behaviorists Ryle or Quine do, but also descriptive ones, but in the spirit of Sepir-Whorf, puts forward the hypothesis of an innate disposition to assimilate the grammatical structure of language, the presence of deep structures in it (generative grammar), the presence of language not only social, but also biological roots [1]. That is, he tries to return to the innate knowledge in the spirit of Plato, supposedly wild tribes could freely comprehend the secrets of cosmology and the atomic nucleus without science.

Like Ludwig Wittgenstein and Russell, Carnap, Hempel, Popper, Moritz Schlick, Reichenbach, etc. argued that philosophy should only deal with the logical analysis of the language of the sciences, meaning by "language" a set of terms, symbols and signs that are used in a particular science.
The principle of physicalism reduces the unity of science to a purely formal, linguistic one; neo-positivism replaces philosophy with a formal logic, separated from its materialistic justification and used to describe the formal structure of the sciences. The special sciences themselves supposedly represent only the ordering of the so-called "neutral" material of science. Which is just a verbal change of the old Machism: the world of Mach and Avenarius is philosophically "neutral", while the neo-positivists" neutral "the" material of science", i.e. the same surrounding world. Machism focuses on the sensory moment in cognition, neo-positivism-on the linguistic form of the rational stage of cognition, replacing philosophy with a narrow sphere of language study and isolating the researcher from the objective world.

Carnap, Wittgenstein, and Schlick consider it" scientifically meaningful "to compare statements with "neutral facts" or with "neutral events" (Russell, Ayer). If the statement does not lend itself to such a comparison, it is declared devoid of scientific meaning.
As V. S. Shvyrev marked, Hume and Berkeley replaced the sources of sensations, external objects, with sensations, Mach and Avenarius turned sensations into objects, neo-positivism took the path of negating the very question of the relation of thinking to being.

In an effort to present philosophical statements as unscientific, neo-positivism has put forward a method of verifying the truth of scientific statements.
It would seem that the verification principle does not contain anything illogical, it requires a comparison of scientific statements with experimental (reference or empirical) data, algorithms and programs. But by scientific statements, he does not mean theories, not laws of nature that are formulated in scientific language.
"The act of verification, to which, in the end, the path of solution leads, is always the same – it is a certain fact that is confirmed by observation and direct experience. Thus, the truth (or falsity) of each statement is determined – in everyday life or science – and there are no other ways to verify and confirm the truths, except for observation and empirical science. All science (if and in so far as we understand by this word the content, and not the human adaptations for its discovery) is a system of cognitive propositions, i.e., a system of cognitive propositions. true statements of experience... " - writes the physicist Moritz Schlick, Ernst Mach's successor, in the article "A Turn in Philosophy "[2].

It is not even that the principle of verification determines the properties of things by their observability, and it is not that any elementary statement is "theoretically loaded". This principle, in a useful attempt to divide the language into elementary components, into atoms that can be experimentally verified, splashes the child with water. Namely: the system quality disappears. Therefore, the verification principle qualifies philosophical statements as unscientific.
The atomization of language is similar to the dissection of the frog princess, you can find vertebrae, cartilage, glands, etc., but the components of Vasilisa the Wise can not be detected. Language is not just a one-time synthesis, it is the product of a long social and historical practice.

If we use such categories of philosophy as quality and quantity, then the water when boiling passes into its new quality. The Chinese and the Negroes, the workers and the bourgeois, have common qualities that bind them together, and they manifest themselves in the confrontation of monopolies, riots and revolutions. For the verification principle, these general qualities are absent, that is, the verification principle directly contradicts experience.
Lenin emphasized that any exaltation, any absolutization, necessarily leads to idealism. Neo-positivism absolutizes the moment of comparing theory with experience, that is, it distorts its role in the process of cognition. The laws of dialectics are not tested in particular, individual experiments, they are their generalization. Positivists deny the possibility of such a generalization and all philosophy in general.

The verification principle looks outwardly like a principle that is equally hostile to idealism and materialism. In reality, this principle is hostile to materialism precisely as idealistic. Neo-positivism claims that the dogmas of religion are devoid of scientific meaning, but it does not deny these dogmas, claiming that they have a deeper content than science. Although in fact this "content" is an old Platonic doubling of the world. Asserting that the position of materialism about the existence of an objective, i.e., an objective reality, is not true. independent reality is not verifiable, neo-positivists do not just come into sharp conflict with the scientific worldview, they give way to religion.
According to neo-positivism, it is possible to speak about the existence of the Earth before humanity only conditionally, the statement about this is only a logical construction, convenient for predictions based on future sensations of geologists, astrophysicists, paleontologists, etc. In the same way, the Catholic Church interpreted the Copernican model. The doctrine of "logical constructions" is a kind of the concept of" fundamental coordination", the constructions are thought to exist only depending on the consciousness of the logician - theorist.

The materialist Henri Vallon was also engaged in the search for "atoms" of language, studying the formation of children's oral speech, he identified some elementary, "primordial" pairs. No less material is provided by the study of the roots of words. Neo-positivism leaves these studies unaddressed.
Socrates also pointed out that any utterance (for example, "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal", etc.) strongly depends not so much on the personality of the utterer, but on external material circumstances [3]. Any utterance taken out of context and out of historical context becomes an empty abstraction, which is filled with content by the most powerful, most organized social force. An example is so called "all human values".
But neo-positivists ignore the fact that language is contradictory, that a statement can be false or true at the same time, regardless of the subject, as the liar's paradox well shows, although Russell formulated this paradox in terms of set theory.

Neo-positivism is also based on the principle of conventionalism, the statement that the initial provisions (axioms and rules of inference) in logic and mathematics are the results of an arbitrary agreement of scientists with each other, who are looking for not true, but convenient theories. Later, conventionalism was extended to philosophy, aesthetics, and ethics in the form of the so-called principle of tolerance, first referring only to logic, then to morality, becoming a justification for immoralism.
Epistemologically, conventionalism is the result of a false understanding of the relative activity of the subject (scientist) in the construction of scientific theories. Conventionalism reduces the concept of the existence of a logical (mathematical) object to the existence of the meaning of signs in the mind of the researcher; the truth of a scientific statement is reduced to the fact of conditional acceptance of the statement in a given scientific system. Thus, conventionalism is subjectivism.
The origin of conventionalism is an appeal to non-Euclidean geometries and symbolic logic without the law of the excluded third, supported by the opinion of A. Poincare that the "choice" of a particular scientific theory has the right to be arbitrary.

Quantum mechanics, neo-positivists believe, is a mixture of the properties of the object under study and the consciousness of the experimenter, who observes the microcosm with the help of instruments. The Copenhagen school (Bohr, Jordan, etc.), adhering to views close to neo-positivism, treats quantum mechanics mystically, supposedly every observation is subjective not only in form, but also in content, allegedly the properties of micro-objects depend on their observability by the subject. That is, this conclusion calls into question the objectivity, that is, independence from consciousness, of material physical processes, which is the basis of the subjective idealism of Hume and Berkeley. Von Neumann's interpretation of quantum mechanics is exactly in the spirit of Berkeley and Hume.
Thus, physics is deprived of scientific meaning, the world appears as a complex of personal feelings, experiences of the experimenter, for another experimenter the world is another complex, for a third – the third, etc.
The neo-positivists, who claim a "third line" in philosophy, dismiss this question as a "pseudo-problem". Wittgenstein, Carnap, A. Korzybsky, and others emphasize that neo-positivism rejected the thesis of the reality of the external world and the thesis of its unreality as a "pseudo-problem".
Carnap and Ayer declared the philosophers ' claims about the objective world to be meaningless.

All varieties of modern positivism deny the scientific significance of the main question of philosophy. L. Wittgenstein put forward logical analysis, the "clarification" of language, as the main task of philosophy in the early 20s; B. Russell believed that philosophy should, if not completely, then primarily limit itself to the analysis of the logical structure of science. Carnap argued that the basic philosophical question is an " absurd pseudo-question. " Frank believed that neither " materialism "nor" anti-materialism "is related to science and is caused solely by"social, political and religious aspirations". Ayer argued that "there is nothing in the nature of philosophy" that would justify the existence of conflicting philosophical schools.

Some changes made in the late 1930s by R. Carnap and other neo-positivists to the principle of verification only somewhat obscured subjectivism, but did not eliminate it. Carnap, Ayer, Popper, Hempel, Quine, etc. some overly explicit solipsistic theses have been abandoned, but the essence, i.e., the denial of Marxism, has not changed.

Carnap

From 1931 to 1935, Rudolf Carnap was a professor of philosophy at the German University in Prague. In 1935, due to his socialist and pacifist beliefs, he emigrated to the United States. An opponent of racism.
However, beliefs don't mean anything. Means action. It is impossible to be a socialist by conviction, "the philosophers of the past only explained the world, the task of the philosophers of the present is to change it" (Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach"). As the proverb says: you can be virtuous by yourself, it takes two for vice.
Since 1935, Carnap has been a professor at the University of Chicago, since 1952 - at the University of California, and a member of the American Academy of Sciences.
Carnap discarded socialist views and began with a series of radical neo-positivist physicalist concepts and a rejection of philosophy. Then he put forward the absurd thesis that the logic of science is the analysis of syntactic relations between sentences, concepts and theories, and denied the possibility of a scientific discussion of the nature of real objects and their relationship to the language of science.
Carnap developed the theory of logical syntax, built a language of extended predicate calculus with equality and with the rule of infinite induction as an apparatus for logical analysis of the language of science, and finally, after 1836, formulated the "unified language of science".
In recent years, Carnap has strongly argued for the existence of "unobservable material objects" as the basis for building logical systems. The title of one of Carnap's works is characteristic: "Overcoming metaphysics by logical analysis of language". Which in itself is meaningless, metaphysics is overcome by dialectics.
On the other hand, of course, the spin of an elementary particle is unobservable, only its projections are observable. However, these projections are observations of spin, Carnap did not understand the dialectic of the "essence – phenomenon" relationship.

Carnap writes: "The observations we make in everyday life, as well as the more systematic observations in science, reveal a certain repeatability or regularity in the world. Day is always followed by night; the seasons are repeated in the same order; fire is always felt as hot; objects fall when we drop them, etc. The laws of science are nothing but statements that express these regularities as precisely as possible. If a certain regularity is observed at all times and in all places" without exception, then it appears in the form of a universal law... we will distinguish between two types of laws — empirical and theoretical. The simple laws I have just mentioned are sometimes called "empirical generalizations" or "empirical laws". They are simple because they talk about properties, such as the black color or the magnetic properties of a piece of iron, that can be observed directly, for example, the law of thermal expansion is a generalization based on many direct observations of bodies that expand when heated. In contrast, theoretical concepts or concepts about unobservable objects, such as elementary particles or electromagnetic fields, should be related to theoretical laws" [4].

Physics, like any other natural science, operates with abstractions. The law of thermal expansion is no less abstract than the laws concerning elementary particles. Physics operates with models that, of course, reflect reality, but always distort it. Moreover, physics operates exclusively with unobservable objects, such as a point, a line (trajectory), a volume, a number, etc., although such objects do not exist in nature. Carnap does not understand the dialectic of the general and the particular, does not understand the essence of the process of abstraction, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. The object "three rams" does not exist, there is this ram (but whether it is a ram), that ram, a little different, and that ram. At the same time, the object "three rams" - exists. The dialectician understands this, the metaphysician does not; Carnap did not overcome metaphysics.

Next, Carnap begins to analyze not physical laws, but linguistics, he tries to deduce something new in physics by analyzing the conceptual and textual apparatus used by physicists. If the lever presses on the piston, Carnap examines the word "presses".
That is, Carnap seeks to draw some general schemes for physics, based not on the physical form of the movement of matter and not even on the relationship of the laws of physics, but on the way people communicate about this form. Which, of course, is pointless, although other physicists in Russia are busy with this.
However, there is a serious methodological error even in these initial Carnao’ considerations. The repeatability, the regularity of a phenomenon, is not the essence yet.

The linguistic logic of the linguistic and conceptual-categorical framework of physics is certainly a necessary subject of research, but this subject is not decisive. Even if we combine the usual formal logic with the theory of probability, it does not tell us anything about the essence.
Bertrand Russell likes to give an example: the chicken is called "chick-chick-chick" 99 times, each time giving millet. Inductively, the chicken comes to the conclusion that "chick-chick-chick" is associated with millet. The computer determines the relationship with a correlation coefficient of 1. However, for the hundredth time, it is called "chick-chick-chick" and the head is cut off. Thus, Ilyenkov scoffs, one clearly makes it clear to the chicken that it would better to have a more subtle idea of the ways of scientific generalization. Inductive logic is also not an assistant in this case.
Carnap does not understand that the essence and the phenomenon do not coincide.

The discoveries of radioactivity, superfluidity, the scattering of galaxies, the M;ssbauer effect, etc., were made by chance, without any generalizing the evolution of science from science itself constructions and schemes. But it was these discoveries that caused a huge progress in science.

Finally, Carnap has unobservable entities. But if it is, for example, an unobservable electron or its spin, then everything in the world is not observable at all. For the reason that all objects consisting of atoms and molecules act on the senses "averaged", as well as radiation in the visible spectrum. There is no fundamental difference between pulling your hand away from bare wires and listening to a sparrow chirp.

Lakatos

Imre Lakatos ' worldview also underwent drastic changes under the pressure of external circumstances.
During World War II, he was a member of the anti-fascist Resistance, became a communist, and together with his girlfriend Eva Reves formed an underground Marxist group.
After the war, he defended his dissertation at Moscow State University, that is, paid tribute to the role of the CPSU in society, then worked as an official of the Department of Culture in the Ministry of Education of Hungary, was strongly influenced by the ideas of a qualified Marxist, but Stalinist bias - Gyorgy Lukacs.

"It was predicted," says Lakatos , " that there would be an absolute impoverishment of the working class. It was predicted that the socialist revolution would take place in the most industrially developed society. Marxism, of course, "explained" all these failures. He "explained" the rise in the standard of living of the working class within the framework of the theory of imperialism; he "explained" why the first socialist revolution took place in industrially backward Russia. He "explained" the events of 1953 in Berlin, 1956 in Budapest, and 1968 in Prague. He "explained" the Soviet-Chinese conflict. But these auxiliary hypotheses were put forward in the wake of events to protect Marxist theory from the onslaught of facts. The Newtonian program led to new facts; the Marxist program trailed behind the facts, and it even had to run to keep up with them" [5].

Lakatos draws a parallel between Marxism and infallible theology, confuses Marxism and Ersatz Marxism in the USSR. Marxism never predicted that the first socialist revolution would take place in a developed society, it only pointed out that for a socialist revolution the productive forces must be developed - in the world, since a socialist revolution can only be a world revolution. That is, a socialist revolution can begin in a relatively backward country. Secondly, this is not a one-time event, but a process. It is Marxism that explains why, after the revolution in backward Russia, already in the 20s, the basis brought the superstructure into line with itself, which in 1991 became clearly visible.
Moreover, it was the Marxist Trotsky who predicted the collapse of the USSR, referring to the incorrect national policy of Stalin, it was the Soviet Marxists who predicted the collapse of the USSR in the late 50s, based on macroeconomic reasons.
Lakatos was totally uninformed, he did not know that CIA was behind the events of 1953, 1956 and 1968.
Thus, thanks to MSU and Professor S. A. Yanovskaya, who was Lakatos ' supervisor, the Hungarian, who was semi-literate in Marxism, received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

During the time of the cult of personality of Matyas Rakosi in 1950-1953, he was repressed as a "revisionist" and was in prison. During the coup organized by the CIA, and after the entry of Soviet troops on 25.11.1956, he fled to the UK. In accordance with this, he developed together with Popper the principle of falsification.
Popper, according to Lakatos, did not take care to develop a mechanism for the implementation of falsification, its absence can negate the very idea of falsification, as a result "sophisticated falsificationism" was appeared.
A theory becomes obsolete not when a fact contradicts it is declared, but when a theory that is better than the previous one declares itself. Thus, Newton's mechanics became a fact of the past only after the appearance of Einstein's theory.
The Lakatos methodology considers the growth of mature science as the replacement of a series of continuously connected theories - and not separate, but a series of theories, a research program stands behind which - as a structural-dynamic unit of the model of science. Every methodological concept must function as a historiographical one.

Lakatos calls the increase in actual knowledge due to its predictive power as the main criterion for the scientific nature of the program. As long as the program provides an increase in knowledge, the work of a scientist within its framework is "rational". When the program loses its predictive power and begins to work only on the "belt" of auxiliary hypotheses, Lakatos prescribes to abandon its further development. However, it is pointed out that in some cases the research program experiences its own internal crisis and again produces scientific results; thus, its continuation during the crisis is recognized by Lakatos as "rational".

Thus, Lakatos ' constructions are descriptive rather than operational. His perception of classical mechanics is extremely primitive, with the advent of GRT, it has not become a thing of the past, moreover, stochastics was born from it, which can be applied in GRT.
Finally, even the existence of a falsification mechanism will not cancel its absurdity: from the point of view of the falsification principle, all incorrect theories that can be refuted are scientific.

Lakatos ridicules both religion and conventionalism, but immediately criticizes the principle of falsification, arguing that this principle is flawed only due to such reason, that most scientists do not agree to reject their own theories.
Lakatos claims that in 1934, Karl Popper allegedly showed that the mathematical probability of all theories, scientific or pseudoscientific, turns out to be zero with any amount of evidence.
“Today it is easy to show, - Lakatos believes without a shadow of doubt, - that the laws of nature cannot be deduced from a finite number of facts…”
The process of abstraction, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete and from the concrete to the concrete general are unknown to Lakatos, he believes that formal logic is able to prove or disprove the truth of one or other theory.

"...scientific theories are proved on the basis of facts. Where does this stubborn resistance to the elementary logic of things come from? There is a fairly convincing explanation for this. Scientists strive to make their theories respectable, worthy of the title of "science", that is, true knowledge." Really??

Lakatos stubbornly ignores the question of the relation of consciousness to being, of the correspondence of theory to practice. He uses inductive logic to prove it. "If the mathematical probability of a theory is high, it is regarded as scientific, if the probability is low or even zero, this theory is not scientific. Thus, a sign of scientific honesty can not be considered something that is not too likely".
However, there is no probability of theory, there is only the confirmation of theory by practice. For Lakatos, anti-scientific Freudianism is also one of the probabilistic theories, like mechanics or GRT. Moreover, Lakatos invents a "solid core " of theory (scientific program, narrative, discourse), which is protected by a mass of additional hypotheses.

"...all research programs, - Lakatos says, - have one thing in common. They predict new facts that were not even possible to imagine, or really contradict previous or competing programs."
Lakatos distorts the history of science. New theories arise precisely on the basis of new facts. Which could not be explained within the framework of the old theories.

Lakatos is familiar with mathematics, but not a mathematician, not a physicist, not a biologist, he builds the rules of work of scientists in the same way as it was done in the USSR during the reign of Stalin or in China in the 50s.
If Lakatos had lived all his life in the UK, it is unlikely that the ruling circles of the kingdom – or the elite of the CPSU, or the ruling class of the Russian Federation after 1991 - would have been interested in his theory.

Feyerabend

The views of Paul Feyerabend have undergone no less surprising metamorphoses. During the war, he was on the Eastern Front, fought in the Nazi army, earned the Iron Cross and the rank of lieutenant. During the offensive of the Red Army, he received three bullet wounds in the stomach and arm, and was sent to the rear.
One of his teachers in Vienna is the Marxist W. Hollicher. However, in his works, Feyerabend, as the researchers write, rarely uses the ideas of Marxism, but often shocks the public with quotes from Lenin or Mao Zedong.

Following the example of Stalin’ VKPb (predecessor of CPSU), Feyerabend regulates science by philosophy. Namely, it brings the idea of anarchy to neopositivism (postpositivism).
Feyerabend adheres to pluralism in science, claims that there are no universal methodological rules in science, but, contrary to his statement, constructs the concept of epistemological anarchism, according to which there is a single principle by which scientists should work: "Everything is allowed". Counterculture, postmodernism, dialectical materialism mixed with Wittgenstein's constructions, critical rationalism-in short, everything that comes to hand. The adoption of only one theory, Feyerabend argues, determines the way of perception of phenomena, leads to a "theoretical load" of empirical data.

It would seem that it is impossible to demand the rejection of the subjectivity of perception, the question is different, in the identity of thinking and being, but Feyerabend demands to unite science, art and religion, all types of knowledge are equal, theories must multiply (proliferate) and compete.
According to Feyerabend, the principle of reducing new theories to old ones in a certain limit should also be rejected: General relativity refers to Hooke-Newton mechanics, and quantum mechanics refers to classical mechanics, since, according to the proponent of equality Feyerabend, this gives unjustified advantages to the old theories. Feyerabend has developed a whole method of rejecting universal scientific rules, like "How to bring a teacheress to tears", and seriously advocates the complete separation of the state from science and the rejection of standardized education.

Feyerabend chooses neo-positivism as the first victim of criticism. In 1978, he contrasted his book "Science in a Free Society" with Popper's "open society" ideology, rejecting the idea of a "neutral" language of science.
Nevertheless, Feyerabend follows the essence of neo-positivism, he is convinced that philosophy cannot successfully describe science as a whole and cannot develop a method for separating scientific works from non-scientific entities, such as myths.

Feyerabend proclaims the rejection of the concept of the only true truth, but not in the Marxist sense.
Using the example of the Copernican scientific revolution, he deduces a rule: a violation of all accepted rules in science; if there is no such violation, there is no scientific revolution.
Feyerabend identifies science with ideology, the question of the correspondence of being and thinking does not occur to Feyerabend, he revolts against the concept of objectivity, that is, against the identity of thinking and being. Accordingly, the agnosticism of neo-positivism finds its logical conclusion in Feyerabend's philosophy.

Feyerabend attacks objectivity in the following way: "To call a procedure or point of view objective is to assert that it is independent of human expectations, ideas, positions, and desires" [7]. That's right, perception is subjective. But it does not follow that scientific statements should depend on the mood of the experimenter. And then the philosopher, like Lakatos, resorts to the comparison with religion.
"However, the very idea of objectivity is much older than science and is not related to it. It appears when a nation, tribe, or civilization identifies its way of life with the laws of the universe… Peace-loving cultures tried to avoid change by limiting contact " ("Goodbye, the Mind").
Feyerabend repeats Lenin's remark that, for example, the settlement of the Indians on the continent was explosive: culture fled from culture.

There are three points here:
1) Feyerabend confuses the exposure of foreign culture with its imposition. The imposition of culture is one of the moments of military and economic conquest.
2) Feyerabend mixes together natural science theories and social laws that change people from ethnos to ethnos, from epoch to epoch. Moreover, he confuses culture as a mode of production and, consequently, as a way of knowing the world, with ritual, religious worship, totemic, funerary, shamanic, etc., which, although connected with the material existence of the tribe, are not any comprehension of the world, a vivid example is the cargo cult.
3) Feyerabend cites the example of religious wars. But religiosity is only a form, more precisely, a screen, wars did not occur because anyone believed in other gods than Yahweh or Allah, wars always have a very definite political and economic background.

The interpretation of quantum mechanics, which represents physical reality as the result of the interaction of subject and object, is rejected by Feyerabend. But not because of it’s subjective idealism, but because it "neglects cultural diversity". But he immediately points out that the objectivity, the independence of the law of nature from the consciousness of the observer, is not the solution of the main question of philosophy, but only a method of argumentation, drawing "the boundary between subject and object", and allegedly the fact that this method was called into question, led to the progress of science. In fact, there was nothing like this, quantum mechanics arose as an explanation of black body radiation and the spectrum of atoms, which could not be explained in the framework of classical physics. Moreover, Feyerabend unknowingly believes that Hoyle's theological explanation of the origin of the universe plays an important role in science.
The focus on historical processes (and not on some "universal laws") is dismissed by Feyerabend by pasting the label "holism". The term, like the theory of emergence, is intended to replace 1) the qualitative transition from the lowest forms of the movement of matter to the highest, 2) the emergence of a new one in the course of removing the contradiction in the scheme of Hegelian dialectics. Holism as a philosophical attitude absolutizes the primacy of the general over the particular.

Feyerabend does not understand the evolutionary component of the development of science, but the main thing is different.
The hypothesis of Aristarchus of Samos about the heliocentric system of the world, Faraday's hypothesis that light is an electromagnetic wave, John Mitchell's prediction of black holes in 1748, Leonardo's helicopter and hang glider projects, and many other discoveries that were radical, were not in demand and were forgotten. While crude objectivists rigidly link scientific discoveries to historical periods, Feyerabend completely ignores the connection between scientific revolutions and the development of the productive forces of society. He does not understand the fact that an artist cannot be free in a society built on heavy, monotonous, depersonalizing labour. Capitalist production unifies the thinking of millions of workers, the so-called free scientist is completely dependent on this depersonalized labor, and, as Herzen said, "there can be no free nation that oppresses other nations".

Feyerabend does not like the "export of freedom", "concern for human rights", which implies "active intervention". He considers this a liberal prejudice and wants to logically continue the philosophy of pluralism and the relations of the United States with other countries.
However, of course, Feyerabend follows the general trend of liberal ideology and propaganda, without any anarchic deviations. According to his formulation, taken from Kant, he himself has not yet "emerged from the state of a minor", his theory is "theoretically loaded" with the prevailing bourgeois ideology. He knows nothing about antiquity and seriously believes that under the slavery, under the autocracy of Pericles, there was a democracy. For Feyerabend, democracy is not the real, instantaneous power of the demos, but the freedom to choose who will suppress you in the near future until the new elections.

Feyerabend knows little about Marxism, but he easily criticizes it. He is quite knowledgeable about ancient Greek philosophers, but his opinions about ancient philosophy are superficial. Xenophanes, one of the founders of the Eleatic school, is only good because he objected to everything he saw and heard around him. The truth is unimportant, the study of nature itself is unimportant, it is important to object. It is not Xenophanes ' understanding of the causes of mythology that is valuable to Feyerabend, but an objection to the generally accepted one, that this objection is the source of knowledge. Feyerabend believes that Xenophanes "did not give arguments" against the mythological worldview. A mockery is not an argument, but a gesture or a bellow, as Feyerabend writes - are an argument.
From the philosophy of the sensualist from the group of senior sophists of Herodotus, Feyerabend only distinguishes relativism (since substance is active, and its perception by the subject is passive, "all judgments are true"). But Herodotus is forced to abandon relativism: the opinion that is useful is true, and that which is harmful is not true.

"The atomism of Democritus, - says Feyerabend peremptorily, - added nothing to knowledge". So nothing that Lomonosov used the atomism of Leucippus and Democritus to explain thermal phenomena.
Marx writes: "The Greeks will always remain our teachers because of this grandiose objective naivety, which exposes every object ... without veils, in the pure light of its nature, even if it is a dim light" [8]. "The ancient Greek philosophers were all born spontaneous dialecticians..." [9].
According to Democritus, life was generated by wet bodies due to heat and "their seed", the first people came from water and silt. First amphibious animals appeared, then animals that live only on earth appeared– which exactly corresponds to the modern picture of the world.
In the book, Feyerabend writes that the trial of Galileo was a minor event, Feyerabend has a separate study on the conflict between Galileo and the church, but he does not even know that Galileo was tortured and carried to the place of trial on a stretcher.

Feyerabend admits that "there are successful theories that use abstract concepts", but refuses to draw from this fact a general philosophical conclusion about cognition in general.
According to Feyerabend, the concept of objectivity, independent of the tradition of truth, "faces" the problem of cultural diversity, "cultural diversity," he says, "cannot be covered by the formal concept of objective truth," because it allegedly contains many such concepts. Thus, objectivity supposedly depends on the method of argumentation adopted in a particular cultural tradition. There is no question of any correspondence between the judgment and nature in Feyerabend mind. This is the same subjective idealism (relativism, which Feyerabend mentions, supplementing it with the word "democratic"), but as a subject – an ethnos, a tribe, a nation. The fact that Chinese planes and power plants operate on the same "objectivity" as the French ones, and the revolutions in England or France took place under the same laws, does not concern Feyerabend. In the limit and within one tradition, people cannot understand each other, because everyone has their own personal tradition.
Accordingly, class positions – only the cultural diversity of traditions, their opposition within the framework of Feyerabend's "theory" - is meaningless. According to Feyerabend, the working class should not prevent the bourgeoisie from "going its own way", which "rarely leads to success", but should learn "the good things" that the bourgeoisie has discovered.

It would seem that everything is true, Lenin called for exactly this: to transfer to backward Russia all the most advanced of the developed capitalist countries. It would seem that everything is true: the working class must master the relations of private property (before overcoming them), and implement in practice the slogan "factories to the workers". However, Feyerabend forgets that it is the bearer of the "good", the bourgeoisie, that prevents this.

A little time passed, and American capital raised the slogans of pluralism of opinions, tolerance and multiculturalism to the banner, the fruits of which are now reaping Europe, faced with armies of migrants from Africa, and the United States itself, faced with black racism. The pluralism of opinions imposed by capital has turned out to be tougher than any censorship, its white noise drowns out any useful signal.

The freedom of Feyerabend is freedom from both society and nature. Feyerabend argues that the subjective idealist Ernst Mach proposed a materialistic understanding of the growth of scientific knowledge.
The book contains a lot of absurd statements, for example, that" medicine before the XX century "was supposedly" devoid of any content", or it should be assumed that "medicine can be successful without being scientific".

Feyerabend, as a consumer in a bazaar, covers everything, in his book the subjective idealism of Mach,
the views of St. Augustine, etc., are presented as true, Einstein's statements are mixed with ancient poetry, the irradiation of the thyroid gland - with the life of the Indians, the axioms of geometry - with Mill's philosophy, DNA-with Boltzmann's criticism of phenomenological thermodynamics, Fermi's cold attitude to the theory of relativity - with Chinese medicine and the eating of dead parents by children. Why in the book there are no statements of Bush Jr. or deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, the topic of sports, the topic of housing and communal services, there is no Michael Jackson, Harry Potter or Schwarzenegger-a question of questions.
Feyerabend is likened to journalists who are not experts in anything, but write about everything.

Both form is meaningful, and appearance is meaningful (Hegel), and myths reflect reality, and, as Marx points out, newspaper fetishes are no less material than a chair or a bed. However, the difference between a mirage and reality is obvious.
Feyerabend, indeed, said goodbye to reason. I repeat the remark of Livshits and Reinhardt from the book "The Crisis of Ugliness" about the modernity of the XX century: I am fed up with the primitive of the XXI century.

Popper

The American logician W. W. O. Quine made a critique of neo-positivist principles from the standpoint of positivism,, and Karl Popper made a critique of logical positivism [10]. Popper argued that the positivist criterion of verification is too strict a criterion for science, and it should be replaced by the criterion of falsifiability, that falsifiability is the best criterion for science, since in this case it is not necessary to resort to philosophical problems related to verification by induction, and this justifies the scientific nature of theories that do not fit into the framework of verification. According to Popper, the growth of knowledge is achieved in the process of rational discussion, which invariably acts as a critique of existing knowledge. Popper believed that discoveries are made by going not from facts to theory, but from hypotheses to individual statements.

In the 60s, Popper developed the theory that ideal objects are real, and their development in the "Platonic world" is relatively independent.

Popper writes: "The idea of the so-called labor theory of value, borrowed by Marx from his predecessors (in particular, he refers to Adam Smith and David Ricardo) and adapted for his purposes, is quite simple... The three main points of my criticism are the following: (a) Marx's theory of value is not enough to explain the essence of exploitation; (b) for such an explanation, it is enough to accept some additional assumptions, which makes the theory of value superfluous; (c) Marx's theory of value is an essentialist or metaphysical theory. ... if it is sufficient to formulate the laws of supply and demand to explain the results of the law of value, then the theory of labor value is not necessary at all..." [11].

Marx did not borrow his theory of value from Smith and Ricardo. He does not just refer to them, in the "Theories of Surplus value" preceding "Capital", i.e. in the 4th volume, he proves in detail the fallacy of the theories of Smith and Ricardo.

The balance of supply and demand does not negate the fact that working force is sold on the market, not labor, and the fact that profit arises from the use of such a commodity as working force, i.e., in the sphere of production.
Popper distorts, he passes off the effect as the cause, the laws of supply and demand relating to the secondary sphere of the exchange of goods, he declares primary, and the primary sphere of production - as secondary.

"Marx understood, - Popper writes , - that the laws of supply and demand are necessary for corresponding explanations in all cases where there is no free competition, and, consequently, the law of value does not apply at all, for example, when a monopoly is used to constantly keep prices above the 'value' of goods. Marx considered such cases to be exceptions, which is probably wrong, but even if they are really exceptions, the example of monopoly still shows that the laws of supply and demand are not only necessary additions to the law of value, but also have a broader scope. So it is clear that the laws of supply and demand are not only necessary, but also sufficient to explain all the phenomena of "exploitation" that Marx considered, in particular the existence of the poverty of the workers along with the wealth of the employers... Thus, regardless of whether the theory of value is correct or not, it turns out to be completely unnecessary in Marx's theory of exploitation".

Popper contradicts himself. Ricardo points out (and Marx quotes him in "The Poverty of Philosophy") that monopoly limits the game of supply and demand, it sells goods to the maximum of purchasing power. Popper refers to the monopoly, claims that it is not an exception, and immediately declares the game of supply and demand unshakeable.

But if one monopoly sells a product above the cost, non-monopolized producers, and there are many of them, are forced to sell the product below the cost. If we keep in mind the international division of labor, then the monopolies (TNCs) of the leading countries sell goods above value, the monopolies of the rest of the world – below, there is no supply-demand game, and Marx's law of value operates.
The result: the distribution between rich and poor countries, which was 3:1 in 1820, 11: 1 in 1913. 35:1 in 1950, 44:1 in 1973, reached 78:1 by 2001. The standard of living in the richest country, Switzerland, exceeds the standard of living in the poorest country, Mozambique, by 400 times, while 200 years ago the ratio between the two "poles" was 5:1.

Because the worker does not own the means of production, he is forced to sell his labor force. The worker produces more than he consumes; capitalist usurps the management of the surplus. Popper pretends that none of this is happening, just that the price of labor is set by the supply-demand game.

"Marx did not explain,- Popper goes on to say, - why the supply of labor continues to exceed the demand. After all, if it is so profitable to "exploit" labor, why then competition does not encourage capitalists to increase their profits by using more and more labor? In other words, why do capitalists not compete with each other in the labor market, thereby raising wages to a level at which profit is no longer possible, and, therefore, exploitation is also impossible? Marx could answer this... as follows: "Since competition forces capitalists to invest more and more capital in equipment, they cannot increase the part of capital that is spent on wages". However, this answer is unsatisfactory. After all, even if capitalists spend their capital on the purchase of equipment, they can only do so by buying the labor necessary to produce this equipment, or by forcing others to buy such labor - in any case, the demand for labor increases. Therefore, it turns out that the phenomenon of "exploitation" that Marx considered does not arise from the mechanism of action of a market with developed competition, as he believed, but due to completely different factors - mainly due to the combination of low labor productivity with a market in which competition is insufficiently developed".

Popper is so illiterate that he does not know about the cartel collusion regarding the level of wages.
Popper is a bourgeois ideologue, the spearhead of his attack is the USSR, for which he promotes the ideologeme "competition". To the United States, he does not apply his constructions, as if competition is developed in the United States. But this is not the case, because monopolies, cartel collusion, etc. limit competition. In the early 90s, consumerists in the United States found out that antitrust laws do not apply. Moreover, such a monopoly as the US state does not allow competition of higher-quality Brazilian oranges, let alone other products.

Popper invents an incorrect, absurd answer for Marx, and successfully refutes it, but Marx explained the existence of the army of the unemployed in a completely different way!
An increase in the organic structure of capital means that the growth of variable capital (v) is slower than the growth of constant capital (c) and than the increase in total capital as a whole. As a result, functioning capital begins to attract relatively fewer additional workers, since the development of productive forces provides the worker with the opportunity to produce an increasing amount of use values at the same labor costs. Thus, there is a relative reduction in the need to attract additional labor to expand the scale of production, and part of the labor force is pushed out of production.

But this moment is secondary! For example, in Japan, before the collapse of the USSR, there was an institution of lifelong employment, only in 2001 there was 5% unemployment in the country, the Japanese were shocked.

“In the idea, which was not introduced by Marx at all," Popper continues, "and according to which there is some objective, real, or true value hidden behind prices, and prices are only a 'form of its manifestation', the influence of Platonic idealism with its distinction between the hidden essence, or true reality, and accidental, or illusory, phenomena is quite clearly felt… Marx made many efforts to get rid of the mystical essence of "value", but did not succeed in this. Trying to be realistic, he accepted as a reality that manifests itself in the form of a price... the question of whether we should call this working time the" value " of a commodity or not is, to a certain extent, purely verbal…”

In general, the accidental (randomness) is not illusory, and, again, both " illusory is essential" and randomness is natural (Hegel).
Engels notes, that randomness is only one pole of interdependence, the other pole of which is called necessity" [12].
Finally, the dialectical interaction between necessity and randomness is also expressed in the fact that necessity makes its way through randomness, and randomness is a form of manifestation of necessity and an addition to it. "That, - Engels notes, - what is claimed to be necessary is composed of pure accidents, and what is considered accidental is a form behind which necessity is hidden, and so on" [13].
Engels wrote that "where there is a game of chance on the surface, there this very chance always turns out to be subject to internal, hidden laws. It's just a matter of discovering these laws" [14].
So, the fact that the workers have no means of production, and the capitalist usurps the surplus, the surplus product, Popper declares purely verbal (verbal).

The other thing is funny. It is not enough that Popper first declared Marx a metaphysician, and then equated metaphysics with Plato's idealism. He distorted Plato's idealism. Plato did not claim that a thing is a manifestation of the idea of a thing. According to Plato, the world doubles: ideas of things (eidos) exists besides things. Although they give form to matter, things are supposedly only a shadow, a semblance of ideas, but ideas make their own movements so as not to touch things. By connecting with things, ideas are defiled.

The fact that Popper feels something there is a personal matter for Popper, it concerns his wife in the kitchen. Another thing is that it distorts the question: after all, both dialectical materialists and objective idealists act in the same way, trying to see the forest behind the trees, to reveal the essence behind the phenomenon. There is no mysticism here! As Marx said, if the phenomenon and the essence were the same, science would have nothing to do. Only materialists explain particular facts from material relations, and idealists consider matter to be a projection of spirit.

Popper dubbed Marx's theory essentialist. Essentialism attributes to an entity an unchanging set of qualities and properties, assumes that things have some deep reality, a true nature that cannot be directly observed, and that it is this hidden entity that is important to us. But Marx just shows this supposedly unobservable essence, Popper distorts it!

"...even in the case, "says Popper," when there is real progress, for example, a reduction in the working day and a significant increase in the standard of living of the workers (not to mention their high monetary earnings, even in gold terms), the workers can complain bitterly that the Marxist 'value', i.e. the real essence or substance, of their earnings is reduced, because the working time required for the production of this substance is reduced”.

Capitalists might complain in the same way.
Capitalists, indeed, complain: after all, the reduction of working hours reduces their profits. But Popper also distorts it here: if the restoration of the labor force requires large expenditures, labor collectives begin to fight for higher wages. If the work is hard, then the labor collectives begin to fight for a reduction in the working day-WHILE maintaining wages. But even the capitalists do not cry for long – after all, an increase in the standard of living of workers means an increase in the quality of the product of their labor. As Marx wrote: the progressive bourgeois keeps his worker well.

And the principle of Popper's falsification is absurd: a theory is scientific without evidence in its favor, and vice versa, it can be pseudoscientific, even if all available evidence speaks in its favor, the scientific or unscientific nature of the theory can be determined independently of the available facts. A theory is scientific if it is possible to propose in advance such a decisive experiment that can in principle refute it; and it will be pseudoscientific if such an experiment does not exist.
That is, all unscientific, incorrect theories, according to Popper, are scientific. Even the American philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn considered the principle of falsification naive.

If the USSR is a closed society, you need to answer the questions "by whom" and "how". First of all, the USSR "closed" Churchill's speech in Fulton. And the US is not an open society, this is a myth, the US even banned Jews from entering at one time. The Jackson-Vanik Amendment covers countries that prohibit travel. According to Popper, China is also a closed society, and China is subject to the amendment. Deng Xiaoping was laughing: "We are ready to supply 10 million Chinese annually to the United States".

If Marx, in the concept of exploitation, emphasized the alienation of the worker from surplus value, then we must take a step forward. For Marx has something to correct Marx with.
1) Already in the Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx points out that there can be no Proudhon's "uncut labor income", taxes are needed to provide for schools, pregnant women, etc. That is, if exploitation is reduced to the withdrawal of profit, then it must remain under communism.
2) It is not only and not so much the low income that depresses, but the very hard, monotonous, monotonous, depersonalizing work (Marx, "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844").
3) This oppression gives rise to something else: pushing the worker around in production, he is a cog in the mechanism, while a narrow social stratum of capitalists (or the party elite, which is the same thing) usurps the management of production and, consequently, of surplus value.

Conclusion

Of course, the future depends on us. Popper contrasts this fact with historical determinism: "The future depends on ourselves, and we do not depend on any historical necessity" [15]. In the article "The Poverty of Historicism" he writes: "There are no stages of society, no laws of development. The idea of the development of society itself - the idea that society as a physical body can move as a whole along a certain trajectory and in a certain direction-is simply a holistic confusion" [16]. But holism is not a confusion, it is only intended to replace in philosophy the principle of dialectical development from the lowest to the highest. Popper, objecting to the direction of history, contradicts historical facts.
At the Third International Sociological Congress in Amsterdam, positivists came up with an extremely old idea, they proposed to replace the concept of development in sociology with the concept of change, in order to avoid answering the question in which direction these changes are going.
In 1959, at the IV International Sociological Congress, the West German sociologist T. Adorno stated that positivism is a kind of teaching that proceeds from the recognition of the existing, i.e. capitalist order of things, and not only proceeds from what is given, but also positively evaluates this"given".

“Perestroika”, the change of the ideological screen, and the reform of education have led to the fact that they study not the works of Marx, but the mouldy works about Marx of bourgeois ideologists? that hinders the development of Marxism, that is used by the professors who registered as Marxists before 1991, neo-Stalinists, anti-communists of all stripes, etc.
N. S. Yulina, studying V. A. Smirnov's 1963 work on Carnap, praises his disregard for the political component of Carnap's works, for the fact that "Smirnov is not concerned with the' tasks of the ideological struggle at the present stage'". However, Smirnov does not ignore the ideology, Yulina writes: "By Carnap. The question of the relation of the language framework to the outside world is wrong. Smirnov does not agree with this position and considers it legitimate." It is this Smirnov’ position that Yulina criticizes. She is like a Rabbit from the fairy tale of Winnie the Pooh with question “What does it mean “I””: "Smirnov talks about the 'correspondence of reality', but it is not always clear from his reasoning what 'reality' he is talking about. "Reality" can also be interpreted as something pre-theoretical, pre-linguistic, as Kant's "thing-in-itself". "Reality" can be understood as a picture of the world drawn in the natural language of common sense or in the language of traditional philosophy. In the latter case, the problem lies in the relation of the representation of the world in the language of science to the ordinary world drawn in the language of everyday experience. And the question is in relation to the language of two theories: scientific, on the one hand, and the theory of common sense, on the other" [1].

It is obvious that reality is understood as reality, not "pre-theoretical", not "pre-linguistic", because reality existed before theory and before linguistics. And not a "thing-in-itself", because the world is knowable. There is no theory of common sense, no problem of the correlation between the languages of the scientific and the ordinary. Does Carnap deny that the scientific theory corresponds to reality? No, he declares this question unscientific. But Yulina criticizes the most important moment of Smirnov's work with the help of empty demagoguery.

Perminov, who reorganized himself in 1991, criticizes Lakatos, who rejects the objectivity of mathematics, for using materialistic arguments.
"From the point of view of the praxeological theory of evidence, the main mistake of Lakatos is that he does not separate assertoric evidence from apodictic evidence and does not realize the special justifiable status of the latter. This belief of Lakatos is essentially connected with the empirical view of mathematics, according to which mathematical evidences are basically evidences of the empirical and inductive order. This view, however, is not justified, and it is completely refuted on the basis of a deeper analysis of the nature of primary mathematical idealizations. If the primary evidences of mathematics belong to a universal form of thinking, then they are extraempirical, timeless, and inaccessible to correction based on any counterexamples. Lakatos is convinced that mathematicians do not and cannot have objective criteria of rigor sufficient to unambiguously fix the fact of a rigorous proof even in cases in which we have actually achieved it" [17].

In the first place, Lakatos did not mix together assertoric and apodictic judgments, which, by the way, has nothing to do with praxeology. Secondly, the evidence that parallel lines do not intersect is not an evidence that cannot be refuted by any analysis of"primary idealizations". Third, there is no universal form of thinking.
According to Perminov, there are supposed to exist independently of human practice of evidence, primary idealizations that are unchangeable, either given by God, or exist independently of nature.

David Hume did not deny the existence of the outside world, he simply did not see sufficient evidence of it.
Many neo-positivists do not deny that a person can gain true knowledge about the world. They reject the existence of the criterion of truth, absolutizing the criterion of practice.
Lenin emphasized that practice is above theory, while at the same time explaining: "... we must not forget that the criterion of practice can never, in its very essence, confirm or refute completely any human idea. This criterion is also so "vague" that it does not allow a person's knowledge to become "absolute", and at the same time so definite that it leads to a merciless struggle against all kinds of idealism and agnosticism" [18].

It is impossible to formulate and verify an infinite number of protocol sentences, therefore. not only philosophy, but any science is unverifiable, which is absurd. It is possible to falsify only old theories, but from the point of view of falsificationism, all false modern theories are scientific. Epistemological anarchism completes the principle of falsification by asserting the truth of false statements. Feyerabend allegedly criticizes the bourgeois state, but I would like to clarify-why does he criticize? Why is this criticism anti-Bolshevik in nature?
In addition to Gryaznov, Narsky, and Bogomolov, A. L. Nikiforov gave a general critical analysis of the bourgeois methodology of science [19]. Neo-positivism is not alone in its desire to refute or at least persuade to ignore Marxism-Leninism. Duhring's theory of violence, instrumentalism, Keynes 'theory, institutionalism, mercantilism, gestalt, reductionism, etc., etc., with a mass of names of "researchers", quotations, and superficial judgments, are intended to create the impression of culture, science, but have nothing to do with culture or science. They have other tasks.

Literature
1. Yulina, N. S. On the work of V. A. Smirnov "On the advantages and errors of one logical-philosophical concept (critical notes on the theory of language frameworks by R. Carnap)". Philosophy of Science. M., 1998. Issue 4. pp. 202-211.
2. Shlik M. Analytical philosophy. Selected texts. Moscow: MSU Publishing House, 1993. pp. 28-33.
3. Platon. Timaeus. Collected works in 4 volumes, V. III. M.: Mysl, 1990.
4. Karnap R. Philosophical foundations of physics. M.: Progress, 1971. 392 p.
5. Lakatos I. Science and pseudoscience. Speech on the Open University Radio, 30.6.1973, United Kingdom.
6. Feyerabend P. V. method. An essay on the Anarchist theory of Knowledge. Moscow: AST; The Guardian, 2007. 413 p.
7. Feyerabend P. Goodbye, reason. 1987. Moscow: AST: Astrel, 2010. 477 p.
8. Marx, complete collection of works, Vol. 1. S. 479.
9. Marx, CCW, V. 14. P. 378.
10. K. R. Popper Logik der Forschung, 1934 ("the Logic of scientific discovery", 1959).
11. Popper, K. R. The Open Society and Its Enemies. V. 2. 1965.
12. F. Engels. The origin of the family, Private Property and the State, 1951, P. 151)
13. Marx K., Engels F., Selected works in 2 volumes, V. II, P. 368, 1949.
14. Marx K., Engels F., Selected works in 2 volumes, V. II, P. 371.
15. Rorreg K. The Open Society and its enemies. London, 1957, V. II, P. 3.
16. Popper K. Mosere de l’historucisme, Paris, 1956, P. XV.
17. Perminov V. Ya. Philosophy and foundations of mathematics. M.: Pogress-Tradition. 2001. 320 p.
18. Lenin. Materialism and empirio-criticism. 18. pp. 145-146.
19. Nikiforov A. L. From formal logic to the history of Science. Moscow: Nauka, 1983.

HISTORIOSOPHY AND THE NEW POSTPOSITIVISM

The three categories of knowledge workers-scribes, experts, and writers - are developing simultaneously, or even at the same rate…
Raymond Aron, “The Opium of Intellectuals”

Introduction

Since law-abiding, well-meaning, and well-meaning individuals must necessarily be doing something, it had to happen sooner or later. Theologians were joined by those who describe how historians work.
Indeed, let us say in retrospect: if there is a philosophy of science, a philosophy of physics, a philosophy of law, a philosophy of agglutination reactions, and a philosophy of the game of the foundling fool, why not a philosophy of history.
"Oh!" said the individual, and the historiosophists were joined by an armada of film critics, musicologists, art critics, literary critics, and others. In a word, the intelligentsia multiplies, thought moves forward, and sooner or later it will find a secluded corner from which no one will ever have any opportunity to dig it out.
It would seem that only yesterday the subject of heated debate was the fashionable topic of the totalitarian regime. Only yesterday the archaic dictatorship of the proletariat and, of course, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie were forgotten. But the individual wants to be different from the gray mass of protesters. No, he says. The totalitarian regime is only an emanation of the transcendental apperception, while in the existential installation of eudaemonism it is not a totalitarian, but an authoritarian regime! And then the individual gets honor, and respect, and a cutlet.

Pre-bourgeois period

The phrase "philosophy of history" was introduced in the XVIII century by Voltaire. However, the naive writer believed that the historian himself should not just describe political and military events, reducing the historical process to the presentation of facts or to politics, in Voltaire's understanding - to the activities of kings and generals, but philosophically comprehend, interpret the life of society and reflect on its existence in solitude.

Ideas about the cyclical nature of history, the cycle, are contained in religious myths, in late antiquity – in Polybius (the power of the king passes into tyranny, which is replaced by an aristocracy, the aristocracy is replaced by an oligarchy, which gives way to democracy, leading to ochlocracy, finally, tired peoples again put kings over themselves). The fall of empires is reflected in myths in the form of eschatology.
The idea of history as a development, from the animal pack to the human one, is found in Dikearchus, Democritus, and Lucretius Carus.

According to Plato (IV century BC), the history of mankind is the history of people endowed with thymos, ambitious people who risked their lives in a bloody battle with those who are weak in spirit, are not endowed with thymos and therefore are ready to become a slave. Like Delyagin, Plato considered justice to be the main principle of the ideal state, realizing that each social stratum fills this abstract concept with its own content.

Socrates criticized Anaxagoras for trying to explain everything in the world by mechanical causes, the interaction of water, air, etc., and argued that the reason for the world order is mind.

Aristotle (IV century BC) in "Politics" points out that the state did not arise immediately, but from the family and from the villages as an entelechy. However, this is where the historical development of Aristotle ends: "... the state exists naturally", the state is "the environment of a happy life". At the same time, Aristotle criticizes Plato's ideal state, in which the good of the whole is not the good of its parts, distinguishes between "right and wrong" types of states, but if Plato sees private property as the source of public evil, Aristotle is its apologist.

Herodotus (484-425 BC) presented history as a set of facts, instructive stories, over which the subjects of history are ruled by fate.
Let the predestined destiny be fulfilled, no matter how much a person resists it, says Aeschylus in the tragedy "Oedipus". The God is omnipotent, omniscient, and he determines the movement of all matter in the universe. God created man as he is. Therefore, Khayyam very logically argues, it is the God who is guilty of all human sins.

Unlike Herodotus and his religious colleagues, Thucydides (c. 460 - c. 400 BC) viewed history as a product of the choices and actions of people, not gods, in which he sought all causes and effects. Describing the story, he investigated the causes of the Peloponnesian War between the two Greek polis, that is, he is also a philosopher of history. More precisely-just a historian.
Nevertheless, archaeology was not yet developed, and the collapse of the slave system was still centuries away, so history as a science was out of the question.

In 1377, the Arab historian Ibn Khaldun presented history as a chain of political and demographic cycles.

In the seventeenth century, Condorcet put forward the idea of human progress as a linear movement towards a certain goal.

The mechanicists, Descartes, Lametri, Hobbes, Diderot, Helvetius, Holbach, and Spinoza gave rise to the understanding of history as a transformism, a movement without distinguishing between the higher and the lower, the simple and the complex.

The theologian I. G. Herder, who admired Shakespeare, tried to create a science that would not just describe the entire history of mankind, but would act as a philosophy of history ("Ideas for the Philosophy of the History of mankind", 1784).

But only the epoch of the first bourgeois revolutions marked the beginning of the scientific comprehension of history. In the eighteenth century, the idea of the historical movement as progress reappears, and this idea is reinforced by the Great French Revolution. In Russia, A. I. Herzen rejects fatalism and the teleological interpretation of history.

Positivism

Capitalism, which has replaced feudal relations, develops the productive forces, but also leads to the impoverishment of the masses, which caused negative trends in the philosophy of history.
In 1844, the founder of positivism and sociology as a science, Auguste Comte, in his work" The Spirit of Positive Philosophy", depicted society as a growing organism, passing through three stages in its development: childhood, youth and maturity. Not understanding the difference between the laws of society and the laws of physics or chemistry, Comte dreamed of creating a science of society that would be as accurate as the natural sciences.
G. Spencer, Mill, Spengler, in Russia – V. Lesevich and N. Mikhailovsky followed the Contour.
According to the Contour, the main factor in the development of society is the human mind, the three stages of the development of society are three stages in the development of the mind: theological, metaphysical and positive. The theological stage does not yet have explanations for the phenomena occurring in the world and uses fantastic images, religion dominates the mind. The metaphysical stage reflects the development of philosophy – a person explains the world through abstract constructions. The positive stage reflects the transition of the human mind to the scientific, that is, according to the Contour, devoid of philosophical abstractions type of knowledge of nature.

V. O. Klyuchevsky in the “Methodology and Terminology of Russian History” refers to the elements of the methodology as five historical forces: the nature of the country, the physical nature of man, the individual, society, and "historical continuity". Each of these forces, according to him, contributes to society its own stock of elements, which are the properties and needs of the physical or spiritual nature of man, their aspirations and goals, relations between themselves. The main character of its history was not an abstract "personality" or "individual", but society, or more precisely, the "masses". Klyuchevsky considers political, social, and economic factors to be historical factors.
The core of history is the relationship between society and the state. Klyuchevsky discards the analysis of "governmental mechanisms", but focuses on the social composition of government, explores the history of the ruling classes.

Klyuchevsky explains the specifics of Russia as a huge territory: "The area of colonization in Russia expanded along with its state territory. Now falling, now rising, this age-old movement continues to this day."
Klyuchevsky objects both to the Slavophile conception of history with the alleged unity of the people with the state, to the narodnik conception that the development of capitalism is not the Russian way, and to the Marxist theory of the struggle of classes.
Klyuchevsky follows the positivist view of the interaction of elements and social forces.

The era of revolutions, the collapse of the old elites caused a mood of decline, Spengler predicted the decline of Europe, Max Weber considered pointless attempts to search for historical patterns. The positivist Bertrand Russell argued: "History is not yet a science. It can only be made to seem like a science by falsifications and omissions."
However, positivism has many faces, and other positivists have followed Condorcet's hypothesis of progress. But, of course, in this movement, they assigned the main role to science, scientists, and intellectuals.

The period before the Second World War also caused an extreme crisis in the mindset, which led literally to psychopathologies. For example, the German expert on ancient history, Eduard Meyer, claimed that during many years of research, he failed to discover a single historical law, and he did not hear that others succeeded. The German Karl Jaspers wrote in the spirit of agnosticism: "History has a deep meaning. But it is beyond human comprehension."

The refusal to comprehend history brought to life cultural and historical relativism, represented by V. Dilthey, P. Sorokin, A. Toynbee, O. Spengler. The axiological approach is opposed class approach, culture is opposed Marxist socio–economic formation approach.
The central foundation of cultural-historical relativism " is considered to be the idea of axiological pluralism… Wilhelm Dilthey, the German cultural historian and idealist philosopher ... renounces a consistent historicism that knows no non-historical values. The theory of the multiplicity of value systems, according to Dilthey, is based on" relativity " without the exception of historical phenomena. The idea of axiological pluralism put forward by him contradicts the program of value theory, since it abstracts from the cultural and historical context. Representatives of relativism were against perpetuating a single, "genuine" system of values, developed on the basis of the historical accumulation of views. Dilthey conducted comparative studies in the field of metaphysical and religious doctrines inherent in the humanities, and demonstrated the relativism of all historical views. According to his teachings, values and norms no longer claim to be universally valid in conditions when historical and contextual analysis has replaced their religious and metaphysical justification" [1].

Sorokin
The philosopher tries to replace historical materialism with historiosophy as a philosophy that studies society as a whole. He assigns a variety of value systems and divides it into three main ones: ideational, sensual, and idealistic. The first is alien to utility, instrumentality, the highest values-God, soul, truth, good, beauty.
The sensory system – hedonistic values, pleasure, enjoyment, eudomonism( the happiness of all life), utilitarianism. The idealistic system is a synthesis of the first two. Western culture-seeks to free itself from religion, it will perish, but Sorokin, unlike Spengler, considers this natural, both of the first systems are not eternal. The core of the revived system will be religion.
Sorokin's system is as disconnected from reality as possible, if only because all cultures are idealistic and sensuous at the same time, while the most idealistic cultures are the most culturally backward. In addition, the values of one people and one time may have no value for another people and time, relativism, appealing to the obvious fact of the difference between the values of different epochs and different peoples, ignores 1) the formation of values in the social natural being 2) the opposite of the values of the bourgeois and the working class.

Spengler
In his approach, Spengler develops the concepts of the book "Russia and Europe" by his teacher, N. Y. Danilevsky. Historical materialism has been replaced by cultural studies, different cultures are absolutely heterogeneous, unique and not interconnected: "... humanity is an empty word. ... Instead of a monolithic picture of a linear world history..., I see the phenomenon of many powerful cultures…So each of them imposes on its material – humanity - its own formula, and each has its own idea, its own passions, its own life, desires and feelings...". The process of history is a picture of " the eternal formation and change, the miraculous formation and death of cultures." Behind the trees, Spengler refuses to see the forest.
Spengler identifies 8 types of cultures: Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese, Greco-Roman, Byzantine-Arabic, Western European ("Faustian") and Mayan culture. Culture means language, art, law, religion, philosophy, but not the culture of production. Each culture has not only different values, but also truths. Culture is supposedly destroyed by civilization, understood as the principles of rationality, rationality, calculation and profit, so rational Europe is dying.
There is no whole humalityl culture, nor is there a universal morality for all peoples. But Spengler denies the obvious interrelationship of cultures, though points out precisely the prevailing egoism of the elites in each nation.
Values according to Spengler cannot be imposed from the outside, but this principle is abstract, it will become relevant only in the era of globalization.
In any case, Spengler denies the formative approach and the development of society as an ascent from the lowest to the highest, cultures arise "with sublime aimlessness, like flowers in a field", and just as aimlessly leave the stage of history, leaving nothing behind. Socialism is not a humane system, but a system of power... "welfare" in the expansive sense… Everything else is self-deception."

Toynbee
In the mid-30s, Toynbee began his 12-volume work, where he described the history of 21 civilizations and concluded by comparison that civilization is born as a response of a particular society to a challenge from nature or other societies. The challenges are overpopulation, war, etc., the answers are social reorganization, technological breakthrough, etc.
Toynbee means civilization a closed society characterized by two main criteria: religion and the form of its organization, and the territorial feature, the degree of remoteness from the place where this society originally arose. The theory is clearly focused on the United States, not even on Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom, there is no isolation of societies, religion plays only a secondary role after the economic factor. Toynbee does not consider the method of production or the culture of production in principle. In Understanding History, Toynbee writes that civilizations "flourished because of the successful response of societies to challenges under the leadership of wise minorities made up of elite leaders." That is, Toynbee adheres to the philosophy of caste. In addition, the USSR, where there was a struggle with religion, falls out of the list of civilizations, although other modern researchers tend to present the USSR as a civilization according to Toynbee.
In the end, Toynbee counted 36 civilizations. The nature of societies is so diverse and unique that Toynbee rejects the concept of the unity of history in favor of value and cultural pluralism, that is, immoralism-long before Feyerabend.

Wallerstein
In 1974, in the work "The Modern World-system", Wallerstein, appealing to the ideas of F. Braudel, discovered that the formation of the world market is associated with uneven economic development. That is, he invented the bicycle, since the law of uneven development of states was derived by Lenin.
Braudel, on the other hand, was merely repeating the ancient idea of the interconnectedness of societies, of having a center (but not centers) with a "super-city"; in the fourteenth century it was Venice, then Flanders and England, then, of course, New York. Braudel divided societies into secondary, but developed, and marginal peripheries, which are connected by trade communications in a single macroeconomic space.
Wallerstein's "world system" is a territorial-temporal space that encompasses many political and cultural units, but at the same time is a single organism, all the activities of which are subject to the same system rules.
World-system analysis, or world-system theory, supposedly examines the social evolution of systems of societies, and not individual societies, in contrast to previous sociological approaches, in which theories of social evolution allegedly considered the development of individual societies, and not their systems.
In the 70s, world-system analysis was developed by A. G. Frank, S. Amin, J. Arrigi, and T. dos Santos.
The so-called analysis consists of the following set: minisystems are primitive societies based on natural exchange relations; world-systems are complex agrarian societies; world – economies are systems of societies united by close economic ties, acting as certain evolving units, but not united in a single political entity. Since the 16th century, feudal Europe has been transformed into a capitalist world-economy. The entire modern world is a single world-system-the capitalist world economy. The capitalist world-system consists of the core (the most highly developed countries of the West), the semi-periphery (in the XX century-the socialist countries) and the periphery (the Third World). The history of the core is the history of the struggle for hegemony. World-empires are characterized by the collection of taxes (tribute) from provinces and captured colonies.
According to Wallerstein, all pre-capitalist world-economies were eventually transformed into world-empires through their political unification under the rule of a single state. The only exception to this rule is the medieval European world-economy, which turned not into a world-empire, but into a modern capitalist world-system.
That is. The world-system, it turns out, is not only agrarian, but also capitalist. Secondly, the laws by which mini-systems become world-systems, and world-systems are transformed into world-economies, are not determined by analysis. The world-empires, such as, for example, the Golden Horde, the Roman Empire, Portugal, Spain, Great Britain or the United States, in the scheme of analysis – are generally outside of any evolution.
The analysis does not include the anti-colonial wars, the USSR, which was ahead of the United States in space exploration, militarily, culturally, the analysis unreasonably refers to the semi-periphery, and is powerless to explain the transformation of peripheral China into the "core". This analysis does not explain the collapse of the USSR, the economic rise of "peripheral" Japan, the war between the euro and the dollar, or the crisis in the United States.
The fact is that the world-system analysis is neither a theory nor an analysis, it is only a set of notations. This construction is introduced solely to counter Marxism, the formational approach, the history of mankind as a history of class struggle, that is, historical materialism and political economy, its purpose is to hide the antagonism of the working class and the bourgeoisie. Marxism also considers both systems of states and metropolises, or the tendency of world capital to centralize, which gives rise to globalization, but it does not need any additional designations for this.
The world-system analysis is just a systemic distortion of history. Thus, in his book "World System Analysis: an Introduction," Wallerstein writes: if "traditional anti-system movements focus on issues of state power and economic structure," then "the rhetoric of 1968 ... ignored both these topics, focusing on the problems of racial and sexual discrimination". Which, of course, is not true.
“Leninism is a mobilizing response to the situation of backwardness and shame for one's backward country”, -Wallerstein writes quite seriously in the article "Lenin and Leninism Today and the Day After Tomorrow". He rejects the fact of the historical regularity of revolutions, reduces Leninism to Lenin's calls to transfer all the most advanced things from the developed countries, and, throwing historical materialism out of Leninism, declares that "such a construction is not suitable for countries at the top of the world's geopolitical and power hierarchy".
Karl Popper acted in a similar way: instead of criticizing the essence, he designated the USSR as a "closed society", and this was the whole "theory" of Popper.
Without knowing Marxism, Wallerstein declares that in Marxism-allegedly "the linear nature of social processes".
First, it bypasses Lenin's law of uneven development of countries. Secondly, Wallerstein ignores the Marxist position of regression as a necessary moment of development. But the main thing is that by "linearity" he rejects the understanding of historical development as an ascent from the simple to the complex, from the lowest to the highest.
Along with the world-system analysis and in addition to the "theories" mentioned above, the task of creating white noise around Marxism is performed by the theory of modernization, which appeared in 1991, the demographic-structural theory of Jack Goldstone, based on neo-Malthusian theory, as well as the pseudoscience of geopolitics, formulated by the fascist Haushofer. Despite the fact that the provisions of geopolitics do not correspond to history, the very name "geopolitics" is widely used in Russia in the academic environment.
In the presentation of Yu. I. Semenov, the relay-stadium approach is a modified Marxist-formational approach, but in one way or another it is the theory of the relay transfer of the torch (light) from one people to another, from one region to another, and from one social system to another.
This approach absolutizes one of the sides of history – cultural and scientific-technical exchange, while ignoring the complete disappearance or total destruction of some cultures, despite the "unity" of humanity. The connectedness of human communities is seen as something unchangeable in quality.
Neo-positivism and postmodernism deny the possibility of an objective interpretation of history, the existence of laws in history and the existence of scientific methodology in it. Popper identified these patterns with fatalism and proclaimed the complete freedom of man in the creation of history-which clearly does not correspond to history itself.
An adequate British historian, Edward Hallett Carr, argued that the West "no longer speaks" of "historical laws", that the very word "cause" has gone out of fashion.

***

The other side of the idealistic understanding of history was the attempt in the XIX-XX centuries to reduce historical laws to biological ones. Sociodarvinism was based on the ideas of Comte and on the constructions of Thomas Malthus in 1798, in his opinion, the factor determining the development of mankind is, because of excessive reproduction, there will necessarily be a shortage of food for all mankind. Therefore, people will fight for existence in the same way as animals, natural selection will occur and the strongest will survive, as Herbert Spencer put it: "This is neither more nor less than a Christian expression of that universal law of nature, under the action of which only life could rise to its true height - the law on the basis of which he who does not have sufficient energy to find a means of life, is doomed to death" [2].

Racist sociological historical theories were born from sociodarvinism and with the development of genetics, one tired to explain the inferiority of the lower classes with the structure of DNA.
Of course, there is a struggle for resources, but the Malthus equation, which gives exponential population growth, is incomplete, so it is incorrect, the more accurate Verhulst equation does not give infinite growth, but the output of the population on a plateau.
Without a doubt, the biological side of a person plays an important role in social processes.
On the other hand, Lenin emphasized the difference between advanced and backward nations, and Crick, who discovered the spiral form of DNA, pointed out the difference between the genomes of the white and black races. However, two opposite conclusions can be drawn from the fact of the difference. Lenin offered preferences to backward nations, in some Soviet sports schools more attention was paid to the less able, while Hitler sent alcoholics or disabled people to the furnace.
Such "theories" as the Malthus-like explanation of the demographic catastrophe in modern Russia by the differential equation of population (S. Kapitsa), the explanation of the history of the world by the confrontation of the Rothschild and Rockefeller clans, as well as the plans of the secret world government, or cliodynamics (A. Korotaev, A. Malkov, D. Khalturina, etc.) with mathematical calculations of how many calories Caesar consumed for breakfast, are not worth considering.

History as a development

Until the 19th century, history was presented in the spirit of Herodotus, as the result of linear development according to the plan determined by the Creator. Hegel presented that the will of the Creator certain logic, by this logic, dialectic occurs the deployment of the spirit, this deployment is the history of mankind.
Solovyov writes: "...time held not only in the study of facts, as in Domani over them, because we have dominated philosophy: Hegel turned all heads."
Hegel did not reflect on history, he outlined patterns in it. That is, those objective connections in the nature of society that do not depend on the consciousness of individuals: "In world history, thanks to the actions of people in general, there are also slightly different results than those to which they aspire and which they achieve, than those results about which they are directly aware and which they desire" [3].

"Several people try, - Hegel describes the understanding of historical regularity, - to explain changes, revolutions, and destructions by accidents, awkwardness, and, above all, by frivolity and evil passions of people ..." [4].

Hegel and contemporary German philosophers presented history as a substance: "... by definition, substance is something self-sufficient, that is, it does not need anything else for its existence, is not conditioned by anything and does not interact with anything, defines itself, and is also identical, unchangeable" [5].
The history of mankind according to Hegel is a dialectical development, but when it comes to power, Hegel forgets about dialectics, the state is unshakable for him, like Cologne Cathedral.

The materialists removed the superfluous from the Hegelian model: "The first main task of materialism, which has risen above the level of primitive naturalistic concepts, is to identify its own laws of history. It is clear that materialism obliges us to look for them not in the consciousness of society (or the individual), but now not in nature. In society, it was necessary to identify and find a sphere of relations that is formed by people, but does not depend on their will and consciousness, the specific qualities of which are not only not determined by consciousness, but themselves determine it, because only on the basis of objective reality is the existence of objective and at the same time specific. The identification of such a reality is a logical prerequisite for the knowledge of the objective laws of history" [6].

As Lenin put it in his book "Materialism and empirio-criticism": "From the fact that you live and manage, give birth to children and produce products, exchange them, an objectively necessary chain of events, a chain of development, independent of your social consciousness, never fully covered by it" [7].

For Hegel, the history of mankind is the unfolding of the spirit in time. Nevertheless, the basis, the essence of history according to Hegel, is the conscious activity of individuals reproducing themselves in labor. Of course, with the caveat that the individual is a manifestation of the spirit of the people, and the spirit of the people is a manifestation of the world spirit, and the main role in social changes is played by the class of heroes-warriors, winners, timotic people, who are served by the class of "defeated", the class of those engaged in physical labor.
But even the idealist Hegel sharply criticizes the romantic deification of heroes, leaders, and statesmen (Lenin refers to the "romantics" as follows: a lackey, a serf, a cad).

Among the laws of history, Hegel writes the struggle within society and between societies. The spirit overcomes itself by constantly fighting against itself. Hegel reveals dialectical laws in history: the negation of negation, the progressive movement. Thus, Hegel puts the development and progress of society as the basis of history.
It is necessary to note the point that follows from Hegel's dialectic, but Hegel himself missed-development is not only a progressive upward spiral, but also a regression as a moment of progress, which corresponds, for example, to the Dark Ages or civilization after 1991.
A. Cheshkovsky called the Hegelian concept of world history – “historiosophy”, introducing the term into scientific use in his doctoral dissertation "Prolegomena to Historiosophy" (Berlin, 1838).

Hegel presents world history not as a change of socio-historical formations, but as a change of popular spirits.
Thus, Hegel doubles the essences, doubles the world, complementing it with the mirror world of spirits.
Hegel's dialectic ends with an assessment of the Prussian monarchy, which Hegel considers the end of the development of the spirit, the highest point.
A cut off understanding of Hegel's historiosophy is presented, for example, in the article by Gobozov [8].
Marx and Engels discard the double nonexistent world, replacing the history of heroic statesmen with the history of the struggle of classes, which are delimited not by the existence of timos, but by the social division of labor.

Before the World War

"In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, - Rusakova notes, - the Hegelian classical type of philosophy of history became the subject of criticism from Neo-Kantianism, Positivism, and the 'philosophy of life'. A significant role in the criticism of Hegel's historiosophy was played by the so-called critical philosophy of history, whose ideological leaders were G. Simmel, G. Rickert, and V. Dilthey. The critical philosophy of history defended a new type of philosophy of history, free from ontology and a priori metaphysical abstractions, from claims to comprehend the objective meanings of historical existence" [9].

"The modern philosophy of history, - writes Aron, - begins with the rejection of Hegelianism. The ideal is no longer to determine the meaning of the formation of humanity on the spot, and the philosopher no longer considers himself the keeper of the secrets of providence. Just as the "Critique of Pure Mind" did not allow the spirit to approach the truth of the intelligible world, the critical philosophy of history refuses to know the ultimate meaning of evolution. The analysis of historical knowledge relates to history in the same way as Kant's criticism relates to dogmatic metaphysics" [10].

The rejection of Hegelianism takes place long before "modern" philosophy.
"Our theories of the 1940s, - fan of a state K. D. Kavelin wrote, - were based on general principles taken from outside, from idealistic German philosophy or from the facts of Western European political and social life, so they were torn from the ground, were too a priori for Russian life". As a result, in the works of fans of a state of a later time, there was a rejection of "biased general ideas", which in line with this trend actually meant a transition to a neo-Kantian critique of Hegelian philosophy, positivism.

However, Aron commits a fraud: the critical philosophy of history does not revolt against Hegel, but against historical materialism.

Raymond Aron, the founder of the critical philosophy of history and supposedly a critic of its positivist interpretation, writes about "the philosophy of historical relativism, which was developed at the beginning of the century, especially after the war, and followed the period devoted to the analysis of science… Evolutionism became historicism on the day when the two values on which the faith of the nineteenth century was based - positive science and democracy, i.e., in essence, rationalism - lost their prestige and authority. Irrationalism has led to pessimism: history has no purpose, because a person has no purpose and, being always like himself, creates short-lived works in vain. In turn, this argument expresses a situation or situation. A German professor with pretensions to aristocracy (biological or spiritual) has an aversion to our mass civilizations, to industrialism, to all forms of socialism ... relativism is always associated with a certain metaphysics. In Trelch's teaching, becoming is the progressive unfolding through time of an inaccessible God. According to Scheler, relativity, moreover, transcended by the ever-valid hierarchy of values, expresses the necessary cooperation of individual or superindividual personalities.; the world of essences is shown fragmentally to each individual, hence the need for a temporary dispersion of lifestyles and thoughts in order to exhaust the intelligible world. Manheim imagines as an absolute historical totality, which is both real and meaningful, as pure fate, which has neither a providential nor a democratic character. For French sociologists, societies represent the principle and the root cause of change, as well as moral imperatives, since they are confused with social imperatives, remain valid in spite of or because of their diversity. Relativism recognizes neither the accumulation of truths nor progress; it recognizes only dialectics without a goal. He reduces the philosophy of becoming (and not evolution) to anarchy of values, even if he does not destroy the independence of human creations... " [11]

In addition to the interjection about the rationality of democracy-it would seem to be a true, destroying criticism. But then the liberal, staunch anti-communist Aron actually joins relativism:
"The problem was posed by two series of papers, two groups of facts. Studies of primitive thinking have shown to what extent the manner of thinking, the ways of explanation are subject to change. On the other hand, sociology or the history of cultures have shown a pluralism of ideas about the world, conceptual possibilities, and the formal categories themselves. In this sense, today everyone recognizes the peculiarity of Chinese thinking, Indian thinking."
After Aron, Paul Feyerabend will repeat the same thing.
"...it is difficult for a professional intellectual not to accept democracy de jure, although in doing so he may further proclaim de facto aristocracy: his thought is accessible only to a minority, " Aron wrote in his 1955 book The Opium of Intellectuals. History as a class struggle has been discarded, the demiurge of history is an intellectual, thought is so old that it has managed to become moldy.

Neo-positivism

Positivism emerged as a reaction not so much to the crisis in science as to the crisis of capitalism.
Dugem, Helholtz, Hertz, Mach, Ostwald, Pearson, Poincare, and Verworn are outstanding scientists, however. "Not a single one of these professors, who are able to give the most valuable works in the special fields of chemistry, history, and physics, can be trusted in a single word when it comes to philosophy. Why? For the same reason that no professor of political economy, who is capable of giving the most valuable works in the field of factual, special research, can be trusted in a single word when it comes to the general theory of political economy. For this latter is just as much a party science in modern society as epistemology", - Lenin writes in his book “Materialism and Empiriocriticism”.

A torn consciousness is characteristic of a society torn by hierarchy. A religious physicist is able to make scientific discoveries in line with the dialectical-materialistic culture, without resorting to the version of God. But as soon as he encounters something inexplicable in physics, the dialectical-materialistic method is discarded.
In a letter dated 10.12.1692 to the editor of Trinity College, Cambridge, Richard Bantley, Newton discusses models of the universe, how the Sun and other stars could have formed. "But how the substance could be divided into two parts, and the one that is suitable for this, merged into a luminous body, while the other remained dark or turned into a dark one, when the first remained unchanged-this, in my opinion, can not be explained by natural causes alone, and I must attribute this to the thought and act of the will of the Creator" [12].

In contrast to this type of thinking, the dialectical-materialistic method draws on the further study of nature, the question posed by Newton is resolved after the creation of nuclear physics, special relativity and quantum mechanics.
Lenin points out that because of the social hierarchy, scientists are biased by the ruling class. Lenin only loses sight of the fact that the social basis of positivism is not only a social hierarchy, but a social gap, a social division of labor, which generates a contradiction between the abstract and concrete content of labor, in a simplified formulation - a contradiction between mental and physical labor.
Moreover, the elimination of classes means the elimination not only of the bourgeoisie, but also of the working class, that is, the disappearance of depersonalizing labor, and, secondly , the transformation of the labor of the intelligentsia, which is freer than the working class.
Philosophy arises every time a particular science within itself denies itself, taking a step towards new knowledge. Philosophy arises outside of a given science every time a new science arises at the intersection of sciences.

Does this mean that there is no independent content in philosophy at all, different from the totality of the sciences, and will philosophy not disappear when the gap between the sciences is bridged?
Lenin warns that the specialization of labor, and therefore scientific specialization, will never disappear, on the contrary, it will deepen. Therefore, philosophy in this sense will not disappear.
Of course, philosophy will not disappear in view of the complexity of the process of knowledge, and in view of the need to rethink it for new discoveries.
At the same time, philosophy, based on the totality of sciences, uses its own categorical apparatus, that is, it is at the operational level and has a predictive value. However, the exaltation of this value, as we have seen in the USSR, and now in numerous examples of bourgeois philosophy, turns philosophy into scholasticism, into a transfusion from empty to empty, into primitive agitation.

Positivism is a philosophical teaching that comes from the Stoics and Kant, which defines the only source of true, actual knowledge as empirical and theoretical natural science research and denies the cognitive value of philosophy.
German positivism was different from Comte's, it was called the second positivism or empiriocriticism, its representatives - Mach, Avenarius, in Russia – the Bolshevik A. Bogdanov (empiriomonist), in the United States – the pragmatist Ch. Pier.
Positivism was subjected to a scathing criticism in Lenin's book “Materialism and Empiriocriticism”.

In the late 1920s, neo-positivism emerged (M, Schlick, O. Neurath, B. Russell, D. Moore, L. Wittgenstein, etc.), after the war, its representatives emigrated, and neo-positivism ceased to exist as a philosophical trend.
In social terms, positivism became a defensive reaction both to the era of revolutions and to the blow inflicted on the church by science, as part of scientism, which represents scientific knowledge as the highest cultural value and the fundamental factor of human interaction with the world. That is, the social hierarchy produced an exaltation of the natural science worldview, which led back to idealism.

The epistemological roots of positivism were the latest discoveries in physics, which led to the destruction of the previous mechanistic ideas about nature.
Engels noted that with each epoch-making discovery, even in the natural history field, materialism must inevitably change its form (see [13]).

Until 1991, Soviet philosophy claimed that scientists in capitalist countries are able to make great discoveries because they are spontaneous materialists. Materialism, on the other hand, presupposes dialectics. Ilyenkov noted that scientists are at the same time spontaneous dialectics, since the logic of science reflects a part of nature, because it is part of dialectics. Thus, scientists, combining spontaneous materialism and spontaneous dialectics, according to the Soviet official philosophy, turn into Marxists.
Auguste Comte said that science is a philosophy in itself.

Of course, in their research, scientists act like dialectical materialists. But this does not mean that they are socially obliged to be Marxists. Thus, they face the problem of how to link their social idealism with the methodology of thinking that their own scientific research generates.
One can say that the positivism of most Soviet scientists was a reaction to the broad interpretation of the functions of philosophy since the reign of Stalin, who declared genetics a pseudoscience incompatible with dialectical materialism.
On the other hand, such areas of physics as quantum mechanics or general relativity are interpreted in such a way as to satisfy idealistic attitudes, which would seem to lead to dualism, but in later variations simply denies the objectivity of science, interpreting its provisions in the spirit of solipsism.
Thus, science (or its problems) becomes, according to the precepts of Thomas Aquinas, only a tool in proving the existence of God.

After the Second World War, neo-positivism (postpositivism) emerged, represented by Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Michael Polani, Karl Popper, Stephen Toulmin, and Paul Feyerabend. For example. Popper is an ardent opponent of the USSR, Feyerabend - turns Marxism into anarchism, the social bias of this trend is obvious.

Lenin

Fallibilism and Pierre Dugem
To see more clearly what neo-positivism is, it is necessary to recall Lenin's work "Materialism and Empirio-criticism". Lenin points out that the basis of empirio-criticism is sophism, the substitution of the content of concepts.
Man knows nature through the senses, the empiriocritics argue; therefore, we know only our senses and cannot break through our senses directly to nature.
Lenin points out that in the first part of the judgment, the word "feelings" refers to the connection between man and nature, in the second part this content is discarded and replaced with the meaning "the partition between the world and man".
However, if idealism could be refuted by verbal evidence, it would long ago have been refuted forever. But idealism arises every time with every new discovery in science, with every new social revolution.

The neo-positivists attribute Lenin's views to fallibilism, and quite in vain.
Fallibilism is the direction of postpositivism, according to which any scientific knowledge is not fundamentally final, but is only an intermediate interpretation of the truth, implying a subsequent replacement for a better interpretation. The principle of fallibilism intersects with Popper's principle of tolerance.
The concept of fallibilism was developed by C. S. Peirce, who argued that at any given time our knowledge of reality is partial and conjectural, there is a point in the continuum of unreliability and uncertainty: "Absolute infallibility may be inherent only in the Pope and economic advisers, but I am quite sure that it is not inherent in the multiplication table."
In fact, the term "fallibilism" is exclusively a service term, it is intended to replace the materialistic understanding of the dialectic of relative and absolute truths.
To. Popper, I. Lakatos, and P. Feyerabend considered Lenin one of the forerunners of fallibilism because of his alleged interpretation of P. Dugem's ideas.

First, Dugem has no ideas, but he has a lack of thought. Secondly, Lenin in this book does not interpret Dugem's "ideas" at all, he trampled it down (with the exception of trivialities): «Such works as P. Dugem's "Theory of Physics" or Stallo's "Concepts and Theories of Modern Physics", which Mach particularly recommends, show extremely clearly that these" physical " idealists attach the most importance to the proof of the relativity of our knowledge, fluctuating, in essence, between idealism and dialectical materialism. Both authors ... are at war most vigorously with the atomistic-mechanical understanding of nature. They prove the limitations of such an understanding, the impossibility of recognizing it as the limit of our knowledge, and the ossification of many concepts in writers who adhere to this understanding. And such a flaw in the old materialism is undeniable; the lack of understanding of the relativity of all scientific theories, the ignorance of dialectics, the exaggeration of the mechanical point of view — for this Engels reproached the former materialists. But Engels was able (unlike Stallo) to throw out Hegelian idealism and understand the genius of the true grain of Hegelian dialectics. Engels abandoned the old, metaphysical materialism in favor of dialectical materialism, and not in favor of relativism, sliding into subjectivism. "Mechanical theory, - says Stallo, for example, - together with all metaphysical theories, hypostases particular, ideal, and perhaps purely conditional groups of attributes or individual attributes and treats them as different types of objective reality" (p. 150). This is true if you do not renounce the recognition of objective reality and fight metaphysics as anti-dialectic… Dugem did the same. With an enormous expenditure of labor ... he proves that "every law of physics is temporary and relative, because it is approximate" (280). And a man is breaking through an open door! - thinks the Marxist… But the trouble with Dugem, Stallot, Mach, and Poincare is that they do not see the door opened by dialectical materialism. Not being able to give the correct formulation of relativism, they roll from it to idealism. "The law of physics, as a matter of fact, is neither true nor false, but approximate", - writes Dugem (p. 274). In this "a" there is already the beginning of falsehood, the beginning of the blurring of the line between the theory of science, which approximately reflects the object, i.e., approaches objective truth, and the theory of arbitrary, fantastic, purely conditional, for example, the theory of religion or the theory of the chess game. This falseness goes so far as to declare the question of whether "material reality" corresponds to sensory phenomena as metaphysics (p. 10): down with the question of reality; our concepts and hypotheses are simple symbols (signes, p. 26), "arbitrary" (27) constructions, etc. From here one step is taken to idealism, to the "physics of the believer", such as G. P. Dugem. Peter Dugem is in the spirit of Kantianism and preaches (in Ray, p. 162; cf. p. 160). And good-natured Adler (Fritz) is also a Machist who wants to be a Marxist! — I have not found anything smarter than to "correct" Dugem in the following way: he removes " the realities hidden behind phenomena, only as objects of theory, and not as objects of reality."[282] This is a familiar critique of Kantianism from the point of view of Hume and Berkeley. But there can be no question of any conscious Kantianism in P. Dugem. He just wobbles, like Mach, not knowing what to rely on for his relativism. In a number of places, he comes close to dialectical materialism. We know sound "as it exists in relation to us, not as it is in itself, in the bodies that generate sound. This reality, from which our sensations reveal only the external and the superficial, gives us the opportunity to learn the theories of acoustics. They tell us that where our perceptions grasp only that appearance which we call sound, there really exists a movement periodic, miniature, very rapid", etc. (p. 7). Bodies are not symbols of sensations, but sensations are symbols (or rather, images) of bodies. "The development of physics causes a constant struggle between nature, which does not tire of giving material, and reason, which does not tire of knowing" (p. 32) - nature is infinite, just as its smallest particle (including the electron) is infinite, but reason also endlessly turns "things in itself" into "things for us".»

For Lenin, truth is not a judgment, but a contradictory process in which the content of knowledge does not depend on the subject. Cognition is the ascent of relative truths to absolute truths. Absolute truth does not exist, but at the same time it exists through relative truths.
"...Human thinking, "writes Lenin," is by its nature capable of giving and gives us absolute truth, which consists of the sum of relative truths. Each stage in the development of science adds new grains to this sum of absolute truth, but the limits of the truth of each scientific position are relative, being sometimes extended, sometimes narrowed by the further growth of knowledge" [14].
"The only conclusion from the opinion shared by Marxists that Marx's theory is objective truth," he writes further, "is this: if we follow the path of Marx's theory, we will approach objective truth more and more (never exhausting it); if we follow any other path, we can come to nothing but confusion and lies" [ibid., p. 146].

So Lakatos, Popper, Feyerabend are simply illiterate.

The crisis in physics at the beginning of the XX century
At the end of the XIX — beginning of the XX century, a revolution began in natural science: X – rays (1895), the phenomenon of radioactivity (1896), the electron (1897), when studying the properties of which they found the variability of its mass depending on the speed, radium (1898), the independence of the speed of light from the speed of the light source (the Michelson-Morley experiment), radio (Hertz, Popov, etc.), black body radiation, etc. Rutherford's planetary model of the atom, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics were a step away from these discoveries.

Under the influence of empiriocriticism were some prominent scientists, A. Poincare, A. Einstein experienced the influence of empiriocriticism. One of the leaders of the German social-democracy K. Kautsky, the Austrian social-Democrat F. In Russia, the Social Revolutionaries V. V. Lesevich and V. M. Chernov, etc., the Menshevik N. Valentinov (who later became an anti-communist), P. S. Yushkevich, and the Bolsheviks A. Bogdanov, V. Bazarov, and A.V. Lunacharsky considered it possible to "supplement" Marxism with Machist epistemology. Lunacharsky proposed to combine scientific socialism with religion ("god-building"), believing that in a religious form socialism would be "closer and more understandable" to the Russian people.

Under the influence of empiriocriticism were some prominent scientists, A. Poincare, A. Einstein experienced the influence of empiriocriticism. One of the leaders of the German social-democracy K. Kautsky, the Austrian social-Democrat F. In Russia, the Social Revolutionaries V. V. Lesevich and V. M. Chernov, etc., the Menshevik N. Valentinov (who later became an anti-communist), P. S. Yushkevich, and the Bolsheviks A. Bogdanov, V. Bazarov, and A.V. Lunacharsky considered it possible to "supplement" Marxism with Machist epistemology. Lunacharsky proposed to combine scientific socialism with religion ("god-building"), believing that in a religious form socialism would be "closer and more understandable" to the Russian people.

"Classical physics proceeded from the metaphysical identification of matter as a philosophical category with certain ideas about its structure. When these ideas radically changed, idealist philosophers, as well as individual physicists, began to talk about the" disappearance "of matter, to prove the" failure " of materialism... the law of conservation and transformation of energy was used in the twentieth century. Ostwald for the justification of "energetism", for the proof of the" disappearance "of matter and its transformation into energy," – one says in the collected works of Lenin in the preface to the book "Materialism and empirio-criticism".

In 1908, a joint book by Bazarov, Berman, Bogdanov, Gelfand, Lunacharsky, Suvorov, and Yushkevich “Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism” was published. Plekhanov criticized the book, and Lenin called it "Essays against the Philosophy of Marxism".

Although in 1899 Lebedev proved the existence of light pressure, and in 1900 he proved the existence of light pressure. Planck proposed the idea of a quantum of light. That is, matter passes from one form to another, there are no "energy particles" or energy in its pure form, without a material carrier.
Much less trivial is the attempt to substitute geometry for matter, when the mass (the momentum energy tensor) is assumed to be zero in the model problem of solving the Einstein equations. The equations give an empty Minkowski space as a solution. On the other hand, in the Higgs model, particles initially do not have a rest mass (inert), it is acquired only when interacting with the Higgs field.
It is not the mass that disappears, but our crude conception of it; it is not determinism that disappears, but our mechanistic conception of it.
It is not Einstein's equations that indicate the possibility of a form without matter, but the existence of a solution without matter that indicates the limitations of Einstein's equations.

"The crisis of physics, - wrote Lenin, - consists in the breaking of the old laws and basic principles, in the rejection of objective reality outside of consciousness, i.e., in the replacement of materialism with idealism and agnosticism" [ibid., pp. 272-273].
Lenin also criticizes the agnostic theory of symbols, or hieroglyphs, according to which sensations are only conventional signs, and not images of real things.

What does Popper write about Lenin's book? He admires the book because it is written "simply". This is all that the great philosopher of the twentieth century could understand from the book.
There is a natural question about the intellectual level of Popper, Feyerabend, Lakatos.

Ilyenkov writes: "For some time now, they began to seriously believe that everything written on this topic by Marx and Engels is a 'semantically inaccurate' expression of their own philosophy. All the statements of Marx and Engels are "outdated" because they are expressed in an outdated language, in the lexicon of the philosophical tradition in the atmosphere of which their thinking was formed in their youth. All this is simply a verbal garbage in their heritage - "verbal trinkets" of Hegelian-Feuerbachian nonsense, and no more. This is how they write about "matter" and "contradiction". The "real" philosophy of Marx and Engels must therefore be purged of all this verbal rubbish, and its "rational kernel" must be set forth in the language of modern science - in the terminology of Mach, Ostwald, Pearson, Poincare, and other luminaries of modern natural science.
Lenin scoffs at the positivists ' predilection for inventing "new words" - all these "introjections" and "principal co-ordinations", "transcendences" and "empirio-symbols", "notals", "securals" and "fidentials". At that time, this style was just coming into fashion (or rather, was being introduced), but Lenin considered it necessary to deal with it specifically. He showed that its only meaning is to give trivial idealistic platitudes the appearance of profundity and"scientific".
It would not be a sin to think about this for those current authors who persistently try to "enrich" the lexicon of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge and logic with the fruits of the philosophical verbiage of Carnap and Ayer, Schlick and Popper — "concepts" and "denotations", "extensions" and "explanandums", "epistemological postulates" and other "paradigms" — and even dream in the light (or rather, in the light of 2) such "precision-verified concepts" to clarify the theoretical definitions of the concepts of materialistic dialectics, its categories, to make them "more effective and heuristic". It would be a good dialectic, presented with the help of this absurd mixture of Anglicized Latin with Upper-Bavarian and Nizhny Novgorod dialect!.. "They" no longer produce scientific knowledge, but only pseudo-scientific abstractions, which are presented as philosophical generalizations".

Lenin's mistakes

Lenin, as mentioned above, easily deals with the logical premise of positivism, borrowed from Hume, if we perceive the world with the help of our senses, then we can not claim that the world exists, because we can not break out of our senses.
Lenin notes sophism, the substitution of the content of the concept.

Ilyenkov explains very simply what mistakes of positivists Lenin points out:
"Philosophy" in its Machist-Bogdanov version... aims the thinking of man at the composition of "ultimate abstractions", in the "neutral" bosom of which all differences, all opposites, all contradictions are extinguished. And in matter, and in consciousness, and in the relation between matter and consciousness. And this is a direct consequence of the idealism of its epistemological axioms. After all, "elements of the world", and tectological "structures of organization", and "logical frameworks", and" abstract objects"," systems in general", and" God", and" absolute spirit " — all these are just different pseudonyms that hide the same — idealistic-mystified human consciousness. The main link in the entire strategy of the Machists ' campaign against the philosophy of Marxism was an attempt to dissect the living unity of materialist dialectics as a theory of development and as a theory of knowledge and logic, first to separate "ontology" from "epistemology", and then to oppose them to each other, thereby killing the essence of dialectics as a philosophical science. The calculation here was simple: with this dissection, the materialist worldview was most easily identified with a specific and historically limited natural-scientific" picture of the world", with the "physical", and on this basis attributed to all materialism the vices and failures of this "ontology". On the other hand, the same operation could be performed with materialistic "epistemology", identifying it with some new natural science concept of "the psychic". The identification of philosophy with a generalized summary of scientific data made it possible to portray the case as if natural science itself gives rise to idealism. To destroy the originality of philosophy, its approach to phenomena, its system of concepts-this meant attributing idealism to natural science itself" ("Militant materialism means dialectical").

But let us repeat: if it were possible to deal with idealism logically, it would not exist long ago. As Engels said: "To defeat the idea of private property, the idea of communism is enough. To defeat private property itself, communist action is necessary". Lenin said the same thing about religion: any logic opposed to theology would be powerless in the absence of a revolutionary movement.

At the same time, there are frankly weak points in Lenin's book.
Bogdanov was criticized by all Soviet philosophers, and Ilyenkov even agreed that the country's economy was harmed by the influence of Bogdanov's "theory of equilibrium". How the tectology developed by Bogdanov could cause harm is unknown. Bogdanov only tried to extend the principle of Le Chatelier to society, to some extent he is right when we see how the sharp increase in the process of globalization after the collapse of the USSR causes countries to resist the destruction of state borders by strengthening protectionist measures, etc.

In his answer to Lenin in the book "Faith and Science" Bogdanov confuses, he attributes to Lenin the understanding of absolute truth in the spirit of Hegel-Schelling-Berdyaev, although Lenin meant the correspondence of relative truth to nature, only in this sense relative, approximate truth is absolute. So Bogdanov clearly misidentifies Lenin's philosophy with religion.
But Bogdanov accurately captures Lenin's misunderstanding not of idealism, but of religion, and ignorance of its history. Bogdanov explains what religion is: this is a reflection in the public consciousness of the social hierarchy.

What is wrong with Lenin's book?
For example, Hume did not deny the existence of the real world. He just didn't want to see enough evidence of it. In fact, the question of the senses posed by Hume and Berkeley is not so simple.
Lenin speaks of objective reality, but leaves aside subjective reality. The imprint of the coin on the wax is only its image, it is ideal, because it has neither weight nor smell, but its designed carrier is no less material than the coin itself. In consciousness, not mythical information clumps interact, but it is the material carriers of images, through nerve impulses.
We are talking about the inability to go beyond the circle of these material interactions. Since man is an open system, the question of whether the logic of these interactions corresponds to the logic of the external world is solved within the framework of Marxism. But a person has something that does not belong to the outside world, even if the external world includes what comes from the human body. For example, the human "I". The logic of the interactions of these "internal ""impressions" is described by literature, in general, by culture. It is not difficult to learn to distinguish a dream from reality, but in general, the question of the correspondence of "impressions" to the outside world becomes far from trivial. For example, when it comes to the manipulation of mass consciousness due to the marginalization of the population, delirium tremens, narcotic, hypnotic, zombified or altered consciousness, as well as memory disorders, in particular, false memories.

The new postpositivism

It would seem that the highly appreciated works of Marx and Engels, the works of Nikolai Kareev, the primitive Danilevsky, Berdyaev, the left liberal Veniamin Khvostov, Nikolai Kareev, Ilin, who served Hitler, and the construction of opponents of Marxism, Klyuchevsky, Lev Karsavin, or Konstantin Leontiev, have been forever supplanted by the scholasticism of the Ersatz Marxism of the Stalinist and post-Stalinist USSR. However, in view of the inevitability of metabolism and reproduction of living matter, their work was continued by new intensively dividing colonies of microorganisms.

Soviet historiosophists can be typified into three strains: not perestroyed, perestroyed, and late (after 1991).
The first strain can be attributed to the historian V. S. Lelchuk, his book "Where Communism Begins: the CPSU - the organizer and leader of the national movement for communist Labor" (1961) accurately characterizes his educational level. You could add the military historian V. D. Polikarpov, his level is higher, but he warmly welcomed the “perestroika”.
Peter Grechko belongs to the perestroika – he has ideas about the practical-theoretical continuality of social reality, about the inevitability of turning the criterion task of practice into the form and course of proving objective truths of knowledge, about the natural relationship of practice as a social norm with nature or basic human needs, about the archetypal role of equality in the historical existence of justice, about exploitation as a social utilization of natural inequality of people, about meta-patterns of the historical process and conceptual models of the science of history, about pluralism as a new social paradigm., replacing collectivism and individualism, about the foundations and future possibilities of cross-cultural interactions, about the pyramid of correctly understood interests as a functional analogue of civil society, about the humanistic and socio-optimistic implications of postmodern discourse…
It is not difficult to discern the standard primitive bourgeois ideology behind Grechko's scientology.
In contrast to the five-member scheme of changing formations, I. M. Diakonov unprovenly rejects slavery and feudalism, arbitrarily supplements the stages of development of society to eight, introducing, in addition, a post-capitalist stage.

Alexander Ivin, proponent of the axiological approach in history. Hakob of Nazareth, gravitating towards Toynbee and Wallerstein. Alexander Panarin, who transformed from a liberal dissident of the Soviet era into a Russian religious nationalist. Elgiz Pozdnyakov, considers Haushofer's pseudoscience of geopolitics a science. Anatoly Rakitov, Yeltsin's adviser, is an accurate description of his "scientific" achievements. Evgeny Rashkovsky, who wrote the book "Orthodox Holidays".
Vadim Yakovlev, a champion of pluralism. Nikolai Rozov, trained at the Fernand Braudel Center under Wallerstein.
Later: Leonid Grinin, A. Korotaev, A. I. Filyushkin, etc., whose works are not worth considering.

The discourse of the past postpositivism was continued in the translation to the Russian reality, it is strongly opposed to Marxism-Leninism and is based on the construction of historical myths. The mouthpiece of the historical exercises of Wallerstein, Attali, Fukuyama, Huntington, etc. there is a plagiarist Fursov, as if Igor Pykhalov, Alexander Kolpakidi and Elena Prudnikova act from opposite positions, from the third position Edward Radzinsky interprets history, from the fourth – Alexander Pyzhikov, before them Alexander Bushkov and two defectors, Grigory Klimov, a CIA employee, and Vladimir Rezun (Suvorov) were engaged in the distortion of history.

The main directions of the new mythology are liberal and Stalinist. The first includes myths about the extermination of Poles by NKVD officers in the Katyn forest (actually, this is an old myth of Goebbels), German money for Lenin, etc., Basically, its origins are old myths of Western propaganda, the writings of Autorkhanov, Bazhanov, Antonov-Ovseenko, Solonevich, Conquest, etc. The second includes myths about Stalin's leadership of the October Revolution, the Red Army in the Civil War, the "ten Stalinist blows", in the Patriotic War, the rehabilitation of victims of Stalinist repression etc. To these are added a whole heap of teachings: the teachings of Sulakshin, the teachings of the lunar conspiracy, the teachings of world programming and secret world government, usually Zionist, etc.
Earlier historians distorted certain facts and figures, as, for example, French historians underestimated the number of French troops in the battles of Borodino or Berezina and increased the number of Russian troops, German historians did the same with regard to the Rzhev operation, the battle of Prokhorovka, etc.

Modern historiosophists operate with huge amounts of data, replacing not the numbers, but the causes of historical phenomena.
Such regularities of the historical process as riots, uprisings, revolutions are passed off as the machinations of the special services, on the other hand, the organization of coups by the special services, paid mass actions – are passed off as revolutions, popular protests.

History is a science with objective laws that do not depend on the individual's consciousness. These laws are implemented, as Engels noted, through the will of people, but they are objective.
The difference between social and natural science laws is obvious, there is no fatalism of classical mechanics in history, but, as it turned out in the 80s, there is no fatalism in classical mechanics, not to mention quantum mechanics. There is also a significant difference between the variability of natural science and social laws. The latter change from epoch to epoch, their change is clearly an act of the will of the masses, the role of leaders is reduced to following the logic of this replacement, but within the epoch, social laws prevail over the will of the people.

The difference between idealism and materialism is that idealism exalts the activity of kings, military leaders, presidents, and general secretaries in changing the laws, while historical materialism puts the struggle of classes, that is, the "average" class (i.e., the unified) consciousness, which, in turn, is determined by the class (average) existence, at the forefront.

The former historical positivism (relativism) declares the laws of history to depend on the subject. The new postpositivism partially preserves relativism, declaring history to be the history of elites, in which it is identical with Stalinism. At the same time, he builds up the alleged laws of history, independent of the consciousness of people, but these laws, capturing particular facts, have nothing to do with reality.

"The philosophy of history," writes Lenin, " gives very, very little - this is understandable, for it is here, precisely in this field, in this science, that Marx and Engels made the greatest advance. Here Hegel is most outdated... " [15].
But it gave a lot to the historiosophists themselves!
The modern philosophy of history is neither history nor philosophy; it is a tool in the tools of bourgeois propaganda.

Conclusion

The main directions in the philosophy of history include the following: civilizational (N. Y. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, S. Eisenstadt, B. S. Erasov, D. M. Bondarenko, I. V. Sledzevsky, S. A. Nefedov, G. V. Aleksushin, etc.); world-system (A. G. Frank, I. Wallerstein, S. Amin, J. Arrigi, T. dos Santos, K. Chase-Dunn, J. Abu-Lugod, M. A. Cheshkov, A. V. Korotaev, L. E. Grinin, etc.); the school of "Annals" (M. Blok, L. Fevre, F. Braudel, J. Le Goff, A. Ya. Gurevich, etc.); relay-stadium or relay-formation (J. Bodin, L. Leroy, A. R. J. Turgot, G. B. de Mably, I. G. Herder, Kant, Fichte, etc.).
These areas were discussed above.
Have you noticed how many surnames there are? And all thanks to coitus, DNA replication, and, finally, childbirth.

Scientific approach, formational approsch: the driving force of social development is the same class struggle (K. Marx, F. Engels, G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Lenin, Labriola, etc.
The scientific approach to history we can see in books of Thierry, Guizot, M. A. Barga ("Epochs and Ideas"), B. Porshnev ("On the beginning of human History").
The formational approach to criticizing Stalinist ideas was explored in [16].
One could add the ethnodynamics of Levi Strauss and L. Gumilyov (except for the theory of passionarity, which is not confirmed by history), but ethnodynamics is essential only in the early stages of the development of societies.

In history, there are no billiard balls, historical materialism is not eliminated from such a factor of history as the consciousness of people, their individuality: "... people make their own history, but they do it not arbitrarily, but in accordance with objective conditions and social laws" [17].
Engels emphasizes that historical laws are realized through the will of individuals. But historical materialism points out that both the consciousness and the will of people are not independent, they are determined by the relations of production, which, in turn, do not depend on their will. Marx emphasizes that the individual is a concrete set of social relations. Individuals may not act in accordance with the historical law, but their "average" action will be zero.

On the other hand, social laws, in contrast to natural science, change from epoch to epoch, the laws of the feudal mode of production change to the laws of capitalism, this change occurs through revolutions, that is, social laws are changed by people themselves. At the same time, with each revolution, the individual becomes freer in his actions, and his actions become more significant for society.
The German philosopher Hempel proposed to consider historical laws as "laws having a probabilistic-statistical form", which follow from the regularity of the repetition of the same causal relationships [18].
Kovalchenko agrees with him: historical necessity can be realized as a probabilistic process, as an inevitability, and as an accident [19].
That is, the law of history is similar to the statistical laws of Gauss or Boltzmann in physics.

However, history can suddenly deviate from the probabilistic path, in this its laws are closer to the laws of Whitney's theory of singularities and to the theory of catastrophes. But these laws are too general, too crude for a diverse history, and stochastic, synergetic laws are not applicable to history, they can only describe particular moments.
Every historical event is unique, and its causes and effects are blurred. On the other hand, laws are not deduced from the repeatability of events in repeatable situations, but repeatability is a necessary part of this deduction. The repeatability for most historical events is highly variable.

Any science operates with abstractions that eliminate the uniqueness of phenomena, but for history, uniqueness is essential. That is, the formalization of history, as it is represented, for example, by analytical Marxism, is impossible in principle.
"It is impossible to explain an individual event in the sense of taking into account all the characteristics with the help of universalist hypotheses, although the explanation of what happened in a certain place and at a certain point in time can gradually become more accurate and complete" - noted Hempel [20].

In the formulation of M. A. Barg, sociological laws are correlated with a pair of "possible – impossible", historical laws-a triplet of "probably-unlikely-improbable" [21].

Accordingly, there are trends in history, but the laws are extremely vague and relate only to the change of formations within the framework of dialectical development from simple to complex.

However, historical materialism and Marxist political economy proved to be the only theories with predictive value. Until 1991, Marxists predicted 11 Polish economic crises, the political situation in Somalia and Ethiopia in the 70s, the victory of Deng Xiaoping over Hua Guo Feng, the legalization of the CPSU elite as bourgeois, the victory of Yeltsin over the Armed Forces of the RSFSR, the war in Chechnya, the collapse of the USSR, the provocation of Georgia with the attack on Tskhinvali, Maidan 2014, etc.

Summing up.
In various mythologies and religions, history is understood fatalistically. In the constructions of non-positivists-relativistically. For Kant and Hegel, randomness is external, and fatalism is inevitable when the framework of the system is expanded, whereas randomness is natural, immanent in substance. The understanding of the immanence of chance for the historical process has not yet entered into the foundation of history as a science.

Literature
1. Rostovskaya T. K., Kaliev T., B. Modern studies of the value-semantic sphere. Social Sciences, 2019. pp. 33-40.
2. Spencer G. Personality and the State. Chelyabinsk: Sotsium, 2006. P. 31-32.
3. Hegel G. CIT., M.–L.: 1929-1959. Vol. 8. P.27.
4. Hegel G. CIT., M.–L.: 1929-1959. Vol. 8, P.52.
5. Hegel G. Lectures on the philosophy of history : per. s nem. SPb. : Nauka, 1993. KN. 1. P. 9.
6. Kelly V. J., J. M. Kovalzon Theory and history : problems of the theory of the historical process. M.: Politizdat, 1981. S. 63-64.
7. Lenin. Ess. M.: Politizdat, 1968. Vol. 18. S. 345.
8. Gobozov I. A. Hegel and the philosophy of history. Philosophy and society. Issue. №4(85). 2017.
9. Rusakova O. F. Historiosophy: interpretation of the subject and typology. Antinomies. 2002.
10. Aron R. Izbrannoe: Vvedenie v filosofiyu istorii. M.; SPb.: 2000. p. 11
11. Aron R. Introduction to the Philosophy of History.
12. Jeans J. Astronomy and cosmogony.
13. Marx K., Engels F. Selected works in two volumes. Vol. II. 1955. pp. 353-354.
14. Lenin. Materialism and empirio-criticism. PSS, 5th ed., vol. 18, p. 137.
15. Lenin. Ess. 4 ed., vol. 29. p. 289.
16. Ikhlov B. L. Why the CPSU and the KPRF are bourgeois parties. Perm: 2012.
17. Kelle V. Zh., Kovalzon M. Ya. Theory and history: problems of the theory of the historical process. M.: Politizdat, 1981. p. 130.
18. Hempel K. Motives and "covering laws" in historical explanation. Philosophy and methodology of history: collection of articles / ed. by I. S. Koma. M.: Progress. 1977. p. 73.
19. Cit. in: Lapteva A. II. Theory and methodology of history. pp. 166-168.
20. Hempel K. The function of general laws in history. Logic of explanation. Moscow: House of Intellectual Books, 1998. p. 18.
21. Barg M. A. Categories and methods of historical science. Moscow: Nauka, 1981.

DETERMINISM AND FREEDOM

Introduction

In the 60-80s in Soviet philosophy, there was a discussion about the relationship between the laws of various forms of motion of matter. The idea of reductionism was proposed (Akhundov, Kedrov, etc.), that is, the reduction of the laws of biology to chemistry, and the laws of chemistry to physics. Reductionism proved to be untenable. The idea of subordination of the laws of lower forms to the laws of higher forms was also put forward, but it did not find development. Indeed, are the laws of biology, chemistry or physics in a person subject to his will, can he cancel them? On the other hand, for example, quantum mechanics in entangled states supposedly "cancels" the special theory of relativity, and in black holes - and the gen¬eral theory of relativity, at birth from a vacuum in a strong gravitational field of pairs of particles, particles are able to fly away from a black hole due to CP-symmetry. But in this case we are not talking about the confrontation of laws, but about the imperfection of theories.
At the same time, the very imperfection of theories indicates a limited understanding of the relationship between regularity and chance, and the inconsistency of reductionism indicates the impossibility of programming higher forms. And this impossibility, as it turned out, is already inherent in physics.
It is obvious that social consciousness is determined by social being; historical experience convinces us of the presence of this connection by thousands of examples. We are talking about both social conflicts and such a social being when manipulation of mass consciousness is possible.
It is worth pointing out that concrete historical connection between objective reality and the subjective world, which they are so diligently trying to eliminate. Namely: the subjective creative world turns out to be surprisingly not unique, on the contrary, standard, completely determined by market social relations.
At the same time, a person cannot be free 1) from the laws of nature that act "from the outside" 2) from such laws of nature that take place in anatomy and physiology (with systemic quality), as well as biochemistry and biophysics of the organism. In the existing paradigm, in terms of the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, the concrete being of a person, including both himself and him as a system open to society, seems to de¬termine his consciousness.
Is this true? As Epicurus objected to Democritus, it is better to believe in God than to live in such a rigid fatal predestination. Do quantum and stochastic uncertainties give free will, are they related to it?
Attempts are being made to make the laws of the lower forms of motion dependent on consciousness. In this case, the question arises: can any lower regularity be considered a regularity, if it depends on the different consciousness of different subjects. The main thing is different: is the influ¬ence of consciousness on experience natural?

Kant's determinism

I will cite one of the Kantian cosmological antinomies.
Thesis: "According to the laws of nature, causality is not the only cau¬sality by which all phenomena in the world can be derived. To explain the phenomena, it is also necessary to admit free causality. " Where "free cau-sality" comes from, Kant does not specify.
Antithesis: "There is no freedom, everything is done in the world only according to the laws of nature."
A mechanistic, Cartesian view of human nature was formed even by Locke, in a systemic form - by the French materialists Diderot, Helvetius, Holbach. Descartes (Cartesius) and further Lametrie presented man as a complex machine. Descartes reserved for a person the right to have a living, feeling soul, an incomprehensible substance, La Mettrie delivered a person from it, including the soul in a nature comprehensible in the distant future.
In his thesis, Kant takes freedom beyond the laws of nature. That is, it makes it either a "particle" of an indeterminate deity, or assumes the pres¬ence of another extranatural.
Many Soviet philosophers did not go beyond the framework of Kant's antithesis. For example, we are talking about challenging the substantial understanding of activity. Therefore, it is incorrect, because it is impossible to deduce the materiality of the social process from activity, i.e. able to unfold independently - as the law of inanimate nature - from the conscious¬ness of the subjects implementing it. "... V. Zh. Kelle and M. Ya. Kovalzon," writes Momdzhyan, "are convinced that the concept of activity itself cannot be considered as an initial explanatory material, since activity itself needs to be explained, proceeding from no other substantial definitions, but from the essential connections of the social process itself. ... The authors be¬lieve that the materiality of the social form of movement cannot be under¬stood (deduced) from activity as such, since it is a subjective phenomenon of social life, determined by its material factors (social relations). Hence the main argument of V. Zh. Kelle and M. Ya. Kovalzon: "Science can¬not make a conscious purposeful activity the initial basis of social theory, because this basis must be something independent of the subject and his consciousness." it contains in itself all the basic processes and contradic¬tions of social life.

The perestroika book "Dialectics of Social Development", published un¬der the editorship of Kelle and D. A. Gushchin at LSU in 1988, also shows a lack of understanding of this problem; it is an eclectic mixture of mutilated Marxism with Western clich;s about personal freedom, ecumene, etc. And even the drastic changes in the country in the late 80s added little to the understanding of social laws: economic laws, the laws of the relationship between the basis and the superstructure, the laws of communication be¬tween the mode of production and all other aspects of social life, the laws of the relationship between social life and social consciousness (I.I. Mat¬veenkov), political laws, laws of the spiritual sphere, the so-called general laws that do not relate to either the basis or the superstructure, general historical laws operating in all spheres and all formations (V.P. Tugarinov), sociological - the laws of the structure, functioning and development of society (A.K. Ugledov), etc. [2]. 1991-1993 convincingly showed this.
How does Kant himself resolve his antinomy? As an idealist - in the regulatory application of reason. You can be afraid of electricity, but you can build a hydroelectric power station. In fact, it is a resolution into He¬gel's conscious necessity, but taking into account practice. In a word, into Trotskyism-anarchism-quixoticism: in order to cognize and free oneself, it is necessary, as Mamardashvili put it in Cartesian Reflections, "to pass".

Hegel's determinism

Let us compare the Kantian point of view with what Hegel says: in its development, chance unfolds as a pattern, in turn, a pattern manifests itself by chance. In categories: the law is essential in the phenomenon. In the definition: "The kingdom of law is a calm reflection of the existing or emerging world" [3].
Further, in Hegel - "breaking off", in the expression of Lenin, and "twist¬ing" of words and concepts in order to eliminate the absolutized, fetishized understanding of the law. Hegel opposes chance (external to reality) not immediately, but possibility (internal, potential reality). Opportunities are formal (everything is possible that does not contradict itself) and real. A real opportunity is almost the same as a necessity. In turn, the need is relative and real. Moreover, there can be only one real possibility, and not a variety of struggling opportunities (which, as social contradictions grow, are split into two camps). Hence the conclusion: everything that really is reasonable.
For Hegel, chance is only the outer side of reality. But this is just a detail. In fact, randomness is a necessary side of a regularity, "touching" the essence, as shown by stochastics, and in the microcosm - just an es¬sence, as shown by quantum mechanics. Chance is not inherent in limiting consideration of the system. Such an accident, of course, disappears with the expansion of the consideration, it becomes a regularity. Randomness is a property of the substance itself.
I.e. the same event at each point is both random and natural, and not only in the sense of the development of events or in terms of expanding the boundaries of the system under consideration.

Consider, for example, an event such as a person hitting a car. On the one hand, the event looks completely random. It is hard to imagine that the confluence of the most varied little things that led to the catastrophe would be natural. If we deal with the so-called deductive method, with the help of which Sherlock Holmes discovered causal connections between phenom¬ena, we will see, writes Svasian, that the chains of events were chosen by the detective quite by accident [4], which we will return to later. The reason in deduction is depreciated, becomes indistinguishable, coincides with the reason.
However, there is a statistical pattern that obliges passers-by to get hit by cars. Because there is a connection between passers-by and cars: they move in the same plane.
Now we will go beyond the "human-nearest environment" system and expand it with the "cars" system. In addition, we will take into account EVE¬RYTHING in these systems. It seems that in the extended, refined system, hitting a car is inevitable.
For Hegel in the world, "everything is connected with everything" (he was not yet familiar with the special theory of relativity). Next, we need to expand it even more. Let's remember that the Universe can be closed. If the hypotheses of the multiverse are correct, there is still no way to com¬pare.
What follows from this construction? Approximately the same conclu¬sion as Hegel's: "Blind is a necessity only insofar as it is not comprehended in the concept ..." [5]. And freedom arises as the need is realized. A person in prison is imprisoned. But if he realizes the full gravity of his crime, then, according to Hegel, he will become free.

Spinoza

We return in time from Hegel to Spinoza because it was not Hegel, but Spinoza who brought the mechanistic understanding of determinism to its logical conclusion: "Possibility and chance are only shortcomings of our reason. … If people clearly knew the whole order of nature, they would find everything as necessary as everything that mathematics teaches "[6].
That is: having overcome the dualism of Descartes, Spinoza remains true to Cartesianism.
If Spinoza knew that the Universe could be closed, and that, in any case, its mass is not infinite, he would not have to turn to potential infin¬ity, which a person, clearly, cannot fully cognize, not to mention the actual infinity. For Spinoza, the world contains an infinite number of things. But in order for everything in the world to move with absolute necessity, in the Universe "the same relationship between movement and rest is always maintained", nature preserves "an eternal, lasting and unchanging order" [Ibid., II, p. 514, 88]. And the Heraclitean "you cannot enter the same river twice," and the "deviations of atoms" recognized by Democritus do not concern Spinoza.
One ball moves because it is hit by another, and the other because it was hit by a third, etc., ad infinitum. Not only is a single cause not singled out in the chain of causes (hence, everything is accidental, Spinoza re¬peats Empedocles). There is also no connection between potential infinity and the singular. The main thing: the cause turns out to be only external, it does not lie in the substance itself.
Spinoza was accused of fatalism, but he fought a different fatalism.

Determinism in theology

I will cite the statement of one of the philosophers of the mystical direc¬tion in Hinduism, Ramacharaka (Atkinson): "... karma ... just a connection between cause and effect. ... A follower of Karma Yoga must first of all learn that a person is one of the units that make up the whole mechanism of life or its general scheme. ... We are far from being simple automata, of course, but our interests are connected with the interests of all mankind, and we touch all of mankind at some points. We must willingly put our¬selves at the disposal of a Higher Power and we will make sure that such willingness can prevent friction and suffering. " [7]
Various religions, ranging from ancient Greek mythology (Moira, Ty¬ukhe), ancient Roman mythology (Fortune), ancient Egyptian mythology (Termutis) and the concept of karma and Tao, adhered to the concept that the fate of man and the world is a foregone conclusion. Khayyam writes:
You and I are prey, and the world is a trap.
The eternal hunter is hunting us, driving us to the grave,
Himself to blame for everything that happens in the world,
He accuses you and me of sins.
This is how the world and the followers of Ibn Rushd understood the world, but determinism for them is not from God, but in nature, and since man is natural, his thinking and actions are rigidly determined, therefore, there can be no talk of any sin. (Curiously, for the Alawites or the Ismailis, on the contrary, free will is unlimited.)
In one of the teachings, the rabbi points out to his disciples a leaf that fell from a tree on a hot day and sheltered the ant from the rays of the sun. The rabbi claims that the Lord even cares for the ant. Although Maimon¬ides bequeathed to recognize the existence of free will.
Nikolai Gogol was convinced that his fate was in the hands of God, but not doctors, and therefore refused to receive treatment: "If it pleases God that I still live, I will live ..." Theologian and historian Kartashev writes that Gogol "is repentant he rejected everything fleshly and starved himself to death in the exploit of spiritualism"[8].
In the views of Thomas Aquinas, fatalism reigns: not only man, but all things move at the will of a higher being.
For Luther, mechanistic determinism is absolute, free will is fiction.
The theologically-minded writer Clive Stays Lewis provides the reader with a mixture of subjective and objective idealism. On the one hand, he repeats Mach: "... we are not able to know anything, except for momentary sensations." He also repeats Kant: "you cannot grasp nature at all, you can only approach it, and even then not too much". On the other hand, it recog¬nizes a person's ability to cognize the external world, but not in a scientific way. [9]. So, Aristotle believed that the soul is a property of the body, but denied this to the mind, according to Aristotle, mind is not the entelechy of the body, thinking is not the implementation, not the function of any human organ. Although even the Pythagorean Alcmeon considered the brain as the organ of thinking (today we can add that thinking is a somatic process as well). Of course, as a materialist, Aristotle recognizes that existence is thinkable, nature is displayed in a person, like a coin is imprinted on heated wax - therefore, being and thinking are identical. At the same time, Aristotle considers form to be primary.
Lewis ascribes to materialists-"natural believers" a lot of inadequate statements: "... no consistent naturalist can recognize free will". One thought becomes the cause of another because we see the foundation in it, he writes, denying that the connection between thoughts, the logic of the connection of thoughts is conditioned by the logic of the external world.
Lewis defines the writer (Dickens) as the creator of what is not in na¬ture, his characters are only in the mind of the creator. For Lewis, there is no connection between Dickens's characters and nature. Lewis assigns the connection, logic, orderliness between human feelings, between nat¬ural phenomena to God and even considers quantum mechanics to be something extranatural [ibid., P. 155].

At the same time, not only Lewis, all idealistic philosophy rightly saw in the "dialectical" mechanism the weakness of the position of the mate¬rialists. She opposed the necessity of a changeable world, but complete¬ly subordinate to the laws of nature, not freedom of will, but freedom of choice. This is a tendency in modern religions, and an opportunistic one. In fact, the choice itself remains predetermined, ignoring the given choice is not encouraged. Of course, you can think of any activity as a choice. But in this case, emergence disappears, "inner anxiety" disappears, the non-existence of matter, discovered by Leucippus and Democritus, the world becomes mechanistic again.
Lewis even allowed man to have freedom of choice regardless of God's will.
Otherwise, it would be necessary, following Spinoza, again to mechani¬cally lay inside matter itself, some activity, such as charge, spin, or, as for almost all particles, rest mass. It is even possible to lay down a "hidden" parameter, not in the spirit of finalism, but as a kind of potential possibility, on which idealistic thinking cannot decide.
Lewis cannot answer the question of where freedom in a person comes from. How this freedom unites with the material in man and outside of him. Look: as soon as we asked this question, we have already received the answer: if this "from where" exists, we immediately fall into the zone of de¬terminism, the conditionality of freedom by some law of nature.
The ideologeme of choice does not get rid of the mechanism, since it is fictitious. In individual action, thinking does not construct several alterna¬tive, competing plans. On the other hand, the choice between two or more slave owners is not freedom.

Goethe and Toland

Opposing theological fatalism, Kant, like Spinoza, substantiated natural fatalism. Thanks to Spinoza, Galileo, Hooke, Newton, Laplace, Huygens, the dialectical Leibniz and many other geniuses, Cartesianism and mecha-nism spread throughout the world, to physics, chemistry, biology, society, and individuality.
Johann Goethe is considered in a sense to be the antipode of Kant - in the sense that, in opposition to the "mathematical" type of cognition, he proclaims intuitive cognition.
Nevertheless, Goethe was the same mechanist as Kant. His "intuition¬ism" is ahistorical. Here is Goethe's formula: "Nature! We are surrounded and embraced by it and can neither get out of it, nor penetrate deeper into it. …Its laws are obeyed even when they are opposed; even then they act in accordance with it when they want to act against it…» [10]
That is - quixoticism is also natural. Thus, we are all programmed, if not by God, then by nature.
Marxism is against crude objectivism, but Marx's objection is not formu¬lated. It concerns only the laws of the social form of movement, to which we will return. Or is there no free will, but it is simply impossible in principle to predict his behavior? For example, in stochastics, at the very beginning of the movement, we immediately find ourselves either in the zone of pre¬dictive "determinism" or in the zone of "indeterminism".
But we obviously cannot change the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, we are completely subordinate to them. Even our resistance will be gener¬ated by the same laws. But here we find a phenomenon that completely contradicts this subordination: chemistry is not reduced to physics, biology to chemistry and physics, social dynamics to natural sciences.
The question is - what then is the pattern? Is the question correctly asked, is it not itself a reflection of our incorrect, crude understanding of nature, such as, for example, the question into which of the holes in the first screen a particular electron flew in before the interference pattern formed on the second screen? Do we have enough categorical apparatus?
Spinoza did not bother to make even motion an attribute of matter. This was done after him by Toland: "I affirm that motion is an essential property of matter, in other words, it is as inseparable from nature as impenetrability and extension are inseparable from it ... I deny that matter is or has ever been an inactive, dead lump ... " [11].
In Ireland XVII-XVIII, it was not known that, say, an electron has no extension (this would contradict the special theory of relativity, an elec¬tron has a spin, it rotates, on the surface of an electron the speed would be greater than the speed of light), that the volume of atoms is basically, vacuum, all the more they did not know that vacuum is not emptiness at all. Note, however, that Toland has no first impulse, no deism, no God. No party, no order of the Swordsmen pushes matter from the outside. Bern¬stein, Lenin for a short time (in the only work "What to do"), the generalists of the Stalinist school, and even B. Porshnev in "Social Psychology", re-turned to the mechanism of Spinoza, they presented the working class as a motionless, unchanging lump, dark, inert matter for centuries. in need of a guide, a shepherd who brings political consciousness to her. Porshnev also absolutizes the role of the leader. As Ortega y Gasset put it in his book The Rise of the Masses, not everyone can rule, but only a special caste of people who "hear the underground rumble of history".

And we see how a person resists this mechanism - absenteeism is growing all over the world, not as a lack of citizenship, but as an objection to useless, discredited parties, as a natural desire of a person to learn about the world, to be different from an animal, to think and act indepen¬dently, and not by party resolutions.
It would seem that Goethe is an idealist, an "intuitive" mechanist. " But it is Goethe, unlike Schelling, who brings into play the critical category - development. According to Engels, it is an ascent from simple to complex. Stalin adds: from the lowest to the highest. As opposed to transformism, as opposed to the version of the Ecclesiastes cycle implemented today in superstring M-theory.
Hegel, on the other hand, has something with which to correct Hegel.
For example, billiards with friction is a system where not only Newton's laws, but stochastics apply. The point is that small deviations from the ini¬tial conditions, even in classical systems, can lead to large deviations from the final design point. These deviations of the initial conditions can produce random perturbations, fluctuations. I.e. you cannot write an equation of motion that will unambiguously indicate the destination.

But we don't need to know if the deviation has occurred or not. After all, we are talking about determinism, causality, we can imagine a similar calculation of fluctuations. And so on to the quantum level, where the co-ordinate and momentum cannot be determined exactly at the same time. Nature is such that, trying to define it, we misunderstand nature, we ask the wrong questions.
In an experiment with interference, we fire electrons at a screen with two holes. There is another screen behind this screen, and an alternation of maxima and minima of the electron density appears on it. If we install a device that detects which hole the electron flew into, the interference pat¬tern disappears. One maximum arises, the usual probability distribution of the electron density. Soviet philosophers at one time had a sharp rejection of such determinism, the "materialists" argued that with the development of science, mankind will know into which hole the electron flew. The impos¬sibility of "knowing" and such an understanding of causality is incorrect because we proceeded from an unshakable, unchanging substance, and in Hegel's dialectic, due to immanent "inner anxiety," it changes from itself, not only under the influence of the external.

Social form

As we found out above, Hegel was mistaken in taking out the source of chance outside of substance. That is, I considered only one manifestation of randomness. Secondly, his understanding of freedom is contemplative, he ignores material historical practice. Historical materialism addresses it.
"Since Marx," Heidegger writes, "by comprehending alienation, pen¬etrates into the essential dimension of history, the Marxist view of history surpasses other historical theories. Since, on the contrary, neither Husserl nor, as far as I can see, Sartre recognize the importance of the historical aspect in being, to the extent that neither phenomenology nor existential¬ism reach the dimension within which a productive dialogue with Marxism becomes possible for the first time "[12]. That is why Lenin asserts: prac¬tice is higher than theory.
Is this assertion a return to Kantian regulation, to the use of regularity either for good, or for evil, or not? Does not the will, the individual "I" disap¬pear at the same time?
The difference between the laws of the social form of motion of matter and the laws of physical, chemical and biological forms is obvious. The point is that parameters such as, for example, value are involved in the "mechanics" of society. But, unlike mass or charge, value, as Marx noted, is not an immanent, intrinsic property of a commodity. It is contained only in the heads of people. Accordingly, all social laws, as Engels wrote, are realized only through people, through their will.
Nevertheless, Marx, like Hegel and Kant, in their assessment of the laws in history proceeded from the Cartesian, Newtonian picture of the world, since there was no other. And only in the last quarter of the 20th century physicists apologized to the world community for misleading the world community with their mechanistic picture of the world.
In 1986, Sir James Lighthill apologized on behalf of his colleagues for the fact that "for three centuries the educated public was deceived by the apology of determinism based on Newton's system" [13].
Quantum mechanics, synergetics (stochastics, theory of singularities, theory of catastrophes) dictate quite rigidly the need to take a step forward from the materialistic understanding of determinism in history. It is about the opposite: to make the latest discoveries in the natural sciences the property of historical materialism. Such an agenda was formulated in 1995 (see, eg. [14]) several years before Wallerstein.
Moreover: it is necessary to understand what follows from the "non-materiality" of social law. So far, it is clear, at least, that the variability of the material social law is qualitatively higher than in quantum mechanics or stochastics - for the indicated reason of its existence only in the minds of people. After all, material conditions by themselves (tools, objects of labor, etc.) outside of society do not produce any laws. Under the perverted form of the tendency in physics to the primacy of geometry (see, for example, Wheeler's Geometrodynamics), one should see the need for a greater un¬derstanding of the ideal, the subjective.

How does social law work? For example, the operation of the law of supply and demand, as noted by Ricardo, is limited by a monopoly. Includ¬ing monopoly (as in the USSR) limits the game of the law of value, for example, in relation to such a commodity as labor. The limitation is also imposed by the institution of life employment legally introduced by the state - in Japan, until 1991. Even this or that activity of the trade unions, as Marx emphasized in Capital, modifies the law of value.
Hobbes wrote that a person's "choice" is just a random combination of certain feelings that do not depend on the person. Following Hobbes, Marx states in the theses about Feuerbach: personality is the totality of social relations.
Schelling, constructing God from the categories of being, essence and existence, defined the essence of God as identity with being, the ability to contain the basis. And the existence of God is in distinction from the basis (see [15]). It is easy to see that in Schelling's definition Marx put man in¬stead of God, and social being instead of abstract being.
It remains only, as if, in social life to distinguish between class-in-itself and class-for-itself, so that the "destruction of the working class" would lead not to disintegration, but to synthesis - "human society."
"The material of labor" (Engels) is not only "everything that exists", but man himself. This forms in him a non-biological need for labor (satisfaction of biological needs is a condition), if labor is creative, and the need to avoid labor (Marx), if labor is depersonalizing.
The contradiction lies in the division of labor, the driving force is the need to move away from depersonalization (for example, the strike in the United States against the conveyor system in the late 60s) and the need for creativity, which is limited by existing social relations. Both of them to this day are not manifested at the level of the universal.
However, it is clear that the definitions of Hobbes-Schelling-Marx are at the same time the essence of the definition of the social form of motion of matter, higher in relation to the lower, and any. For an individual, on the contrary, the definition should be inverted: the s i d e (not two or poly-essences!) Of essence - in distinction with activity, with social relations, and existence - in identity with social being.
Just a side - because the phenomenon of human uniqueness is still not revealed. And it cannot be revealed.

The point is not only that human creativity within the framework of domi¬nant idealism is ontologically understood as a manifestation of the super¬natural. In this case, life exists forever, it is she, as the highest form, in the spirit of Augustine that determines time (duration, according to Bergson), and the relation "subject - object" is understood in a finalist way, identical with the present historical moment.
Disclosure of uniqueness through "awareness of oneself", through self-awareness slightly adds to the distinction of human uniqueness (especially since self-isolation, the ability to self-organize exists not only in social, but also in biological, chemical and even hydrodynamic systems, which is de¬scribed within synergetics by nonlinear equations of the Hadronov type).
The impossibility of disclosure is associated at least with the absence of phenomenological material in biology, where the difference between living matter and inanimate matter has not yet been comprehended, that is, the previous step has not been completed.
It is only clear that the uniqueness of the "I", which can influence social laws, but is unable to change the laws of its basis (they, if they change, then independently), is essential and cannot be understood within the framework of social, biochemical or physical determinism.

The second aspect is not freedom from the laws of nature - the impos¬sibility for a person to change the laws of nature. Which, as indicated in the introduction, is being questioned. On the other hand, the inconsisten¬cy of the concepts of reality is emphasized. But this discrepancy is a law that by no means puts a ban on the scientific approach. "The approach of the mind ... to a separate thing, making a cast (= concept) from it is not a simple, immediate, mirror-dead act, but a complex, bifurcated, zigzag-like one, which includes the possibility of fantasy flying away from life; moreo¬ver: the possibility of transformation (and, moreover, an imperceptible, unrecognizable transformation by a person) of an abstract concept, an idea into a fantasy ... For even in the simplest generalization, in the most elementary general idea ... there is a certain piece of fantasy.)"[16].
"The most decisive refutation," writes Engels, "of these, like all others, philosophical quirks lies in practice, in experiment and in industry" [17].
"The question of whether human thinking possesses objective truth," emphasizes Marx, "is not at all a question of theory, but a practical ques¬tion. In practice, a person must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power, this-sidedness of his thinking. The dispute about the validity or in¬validity of thinking, isolated from practice, is a purely scholastic question" ("Theses on Feuerbach").
At the same time, the question of the conformity of concepts to reality is by no means idle. Each concept is internal contradictory, it cannot be considered statically, the manifestation of the contradiction of the concept in scientific practice is a sure sign that the content of the concept will be replaced by a qualitatively new one.
If a person is a set of social relations, this means that a society con¬sisting of machine people is doomed to follow its unchanging laws. In this case, a person acts as an abstract point of intersection of social lines, the word "concrete" does not distinguish a person with social relations.
The source of fatal predetermination is the dominant abstract content in labor, which also limits concrete labor.

Identity of thinking and being

It means that thinking reflects the external world, corresponds to it, that is, the world is knowable. Objective idealists also agree with this.
Let's note the obvious points. Of course, 1) thinking is ideal, therefore it is opposite to being; 2) thinking is not only abstract, but also intuitive.
At the same time, thinking is not identical with being in the literal sense. Landau and Peierls proved theoretically that two-dimensional crystals cannot exist because they are unstable. However, the experi¬menters then created graphene.
But cases of non-identity are natural. Consequently, the non-identity of thinking with being also has a general character.
For example, Ilyenkov, understanding law and determinism fatalisti¬cally (like Labriola, Plekhanov, D. Lukach, Stalin or Trotsky, but not Marx or Lenin), did not see the general content in the "insignificant" deviations, in their specifics.
But that's not all.
Thinking is not simultaneously identical with being, not in the Kantian sense of the thing-in-itself, not in the sense of imprecision (subjectivity) and not in the sense of ideality. In any process of abstraction, a new con¬tent arises, which both includes reality and does not include it, instead it includes something that does not seem to belong to reality. The classical equations of motion make it possible to predict reality, but they contain the reversibility of time and "travel to the future" that do not exist in na¬ture. Namely: in those processes of which they are abstracts. Delayed and advanced solutions in these processes have a completely clear physical meaning, but they are a reflection of the deep general symmetry of physical laws. The contradictions that arise in connection with theoreti¬cal time travel are the sources of further development of the theory.
Secondly, thinking also reveals what has not yet been realized in the world, what it cannot display - not only actual, but also hidden in potency. Of course, thinking does this on the basis of the previous identity with being. "This supplying disclosure of everything can be carried out only to the extent that a person, for his part, is already involved in the extraction of natural energies in advance. If a person is involved in this, put on it, then does not a person - even more primordial than nature - belong to the being-in-existence? " - asks Heidegger [18].
But in this autopsy, there is something that was not contained in the basis. At least on the simple basis that subjective reality develops not only thanks to objective reality, but also, to a certain extent, indepen¬dently.
Consequently, free will exists and is realized in thinking. And in activ¬ity?

Conclusion

Of course, free will is not something that is excreted, like the liver is bile, at the same time it is not something extra-natural. It is, like thinking itself, only the presence of a new systemic quality, limited by the lower forms of movement.
At the same time, embedding in the freedom of will in the Procrustean bed of regularity, including the quantum-stochastic one, is an incorrect task. For not just mechanism is limited, but on the whole "causality (causal¬ity, B.I.), which we usually understand, is only a small part of the universal connection. [19].
Abstract analysis is certainly important, but it is not the main task.
In science, Marx argues, there is nothing but its practical application. The task is not to explain, but to change the world. The practical conclu¬sion, although trivial, has not yet been comprehended, for example, by representatives of political parties: freedom of will can be realized only when the abstract content of labor ceases to dominate in social relations.

References
1. K. Kh. Momdzhyan. Categories of historical materialism: consisten¬cy, development. M.: MSU. – 1986. - P. 66-67.
2. V. V. Frolov. Social laws under socialism. M.: Higher school. – 1990.
3. Hegel G. Op. M. – L.: Thought. - 1929-1959. - V.5. - P 602.
4. K. A. Svasyan. "Phenomenological Cognition". – Yerevan, AS of the Armenian SSR. - 1987. – P. 32.
5. Hegel G. Op. M. – L. – 1929-1959. - V.1. - P. 248.
6. Spinoza B. "Metaphysical Thoughts". Op. M.: 1975. - V. I. - P. 277, 301.
7. Atkinson V. Ways of Achievement of Indian Yogis. Karma yoga. Reading V.
https://esoterics.wikireading.ru/88891 (appeal date 27.06.2018)
8. A. Kartashev. "Ecumenical Councils". - M.: Republic. - 1994. - P. 289.
9. C. S. Lewis. Miracle. .: Foundation. n.a. Men, publishing house "The Bible is for everyone." 2000. - Op.. - V.7 - P. 158-160.
10. Goethe. Naturwissenschaftliche Schriften: Mit Einleitungen und Er¬lauterungen im Text/Hrsg. von Rudolf Steiner. Dornach, 1982. – V. 2. – P. 5.
11. Toland D. Works. English materialists of the XVIII century. Collected works in three volumes. – M.: Thought. - 1967-1968. – V. 1. – P. 152.
12. Heidegger M. Letter about humanism. In the book. "Time and Be¬ing". - M.: Republic. - 1993. – P. 204.
13. Lighthill J. Proceedings of the Royal Society. - A 407. - London, Royal Society. – 1986. - P. 35—50.
14. Ikhlov B. What is history? From the point of view of a physicist. CLIO. - SPb.: Nestor. – 1998. - №1(4). – P. 16-24.
15. Rezvykh P.V. Being, essence and existence in the late ontology of G.V.Y. Schelling.
Philosophy questions. - 1996. - №2. – P. 114.
16. Lenin. Philosophical notebooks. Synopsis of Aristotle's book "Meta¬physics". PSS, ed. 5. - V. 29. - P. 330.
17. Engels F. Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Phi¬losophy. Op., ed. 2. – V. 21. –P.15.
18. Heidegger M. The question of technology. In the book. "Time and Being". – M.: Republic. - 1993. – P. 228.
19.V. I. Lenin. Philosophical notebooks. PSS. Ed. 5. – V. 29. – P. 144.187

DOI 10.34660/INF.2021.40.45.021

CRISES IN PHYSICS

Analysis or agitation?

In 2007, when the Higgs boson had not yet been discovered at the Large Hadron Collider, the Nobel Prize had not yet been awarded for this discovery, and gravitational waves had not yet been registered, a book was published by Lee Smolin, a specialist in loop quantum gravity and string theory, entitled " Trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the decline of science, and what follows." The author writes about "the stagnation that has taken hold of theoretical physics".
"There may or may not be a God. Or the gods. However, there is something ennobling about our search for the divine. And also something humanizing that is reflected in each of the ways that people have opened up to lead us to deeper levels of truth. Some seek the transcendent in meditation and prayer; others seek it in the service of their loved ones; still others, who are happy enough to have talent, seek the transcendent by practicing art.
Another way that touches on the deepest questions of life is science".

That is: there was a stage in the development of capitalism when physicists started talking about religion. Although in the XVI century, it was capitalism that called on science to overthrow religion, although Lenin still explained that "any flirtation with religion is a cadaver".

"...we failed, - writes Lee Smolin. - We inherited a science, physics, that progressed so quickly and for so long that it was often taken as a model for how other fields of science should work. For more than two centuries until today, our understanding of the laws of nature has expanded rapidly. But today, despite all our efforts, what we know for certain about these laws does not exceed what we knew about them in the 1970s... "What have we discovered that our generation could be proud of?" If we mean new fundamental discoveries established by experiment and explained by theory-discoveries on the level of those just mentioned — the answer we must admit is: “Nothing!” ... we have made two experimental discoveries in the last two decades: that neutrinos have mass and that the universe is dominated by a mysterious dark energy that seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe... its discovery cannot be regarded as a success... many great ideas have been explored, and there have been outstanding particle accelerator experiments and cosmological observations, but they have mostly served to confirm existing theories. There were several leaps forward, but none as decisive or important as in the previous 200 years… For the experiment to be meaningful, we must be able to get an answer that is at odds with these predictions. When this is the case, we say that the theory is falsifiable - vulnerable to being refuted".

The author calls the criterion of the truth of the theory the principle of falsifiability of Popper. If we ask ourselves whether the principle of falsifiability is false, and WHY Popper needed it – we will immediately get an answer to the question of whether the principle is false or true.

In his excursion into the history of "philosophical" ideas, Lee Smolin mentions the principle of verification as refuted.
First, the verification principle extends the principle of practice as a criterion of truth by adding a comparison with accepted algorithms, programs that themselves require verification by practice. But the same principle narrows down the criterion of practice.
Secondly, where did Smolin get the idea that the thesis of practice as a criterion of truth was refuted? Although, of course, not every practice is a criterion of truth, measurement by a faulty instrument cannot be a criterion of truth.
But in fact, among the "verificationists" of the Vienna Circle, that is, the neo-positivists, Wittgenstein argued that "it is not necessary to know whether a sentence is true or false, but to know the circumstances that make it possible to establish its truth".
In fact, the principle of verification appeals not to the comparison of theory and experience, but to the verifiability of "atomic" judgments.

In science, the neo-positivists preached, there should remain two classes of scientific propositions - analytical truths that have no objective content, and factual truths, empirical facts of specific sciences, the meaning of which can be verified in a special way - the principle of verification. The procedure of verification by means of protocol propositions of an empirical nature, which "purifies" science from metaphysics – read from philosophy, more precisely, from dialectical materialism - is the basis of logical positivism. Verification, the procedure for verifying the truth of knowledge, according to neo-positivists, suggests that complex sentences should be divided into protocol sentences. The truth of protocol sentences is absolutely certain, since it corresponds to the observed reality. Thus, practice as a criterion of truth does not even appear in the principle of verification.

In 1935, Popper, who criticized the principle of verification, put forward the principle of falsification.
The theory meets the Popper criterion, is falsifiable and, accordingly, scientific if there is a possibility of its experimental or other refutation.
The principle is meaningless. Indeed:
1) what if all the available experiments confirm the theory, but no one can come up with an experiment that would refute it?
(2) It immediately follows from Popper's principle that all theories, at least until 1935, were not scientific unless scientists sought to refute them experimentally. But scientists did not just look for, but conducted experiments that could confirm or refute any theory, including the "experiments of the cross", designed to answer the question " yes " or "no". Consequently, the scientists acted correctly without any principle of falsification.
Popper confuses the possibility of an experiment and the experiment itself.

Consider the theory that there is another Universe near our Universe that does not interact with our Universe in any way. It is impossible to refute this "theory" experimentally. It would seem that the Popper principle is designed to weed out such theories. But their unscientific nature is obvious, and no principle is required to eliminate them.

Whether the very speculative possibility of a refuting experiment is correct, the principle of falsification does not consider.
Every theory has limits of applicability, this is well known, and this does not mean that limited theories are unscientific. However, the limits of applicability are set only by future experience, about which nothing can be known.
But if the possibility of experimental refutation was realized, and the experiment refuted the theory? This means absolutely nothing, because according to the principle of falsification, this theory is scientific. Thus, the concept of scientific knowledge loses its meaning.
Unfortunately, Popper is now revered by professors of all Russian universities.
And we know these professors by name, don't we?

So, on the first pages of the book, Lee Smolin only follows the standard bourgeois ideology, the bourgeois indicates how a scientist should think, and Lee Smolin thinks with anti-communist, anti-Soviet cliches.
"Neither a Marxist country nor a fundamentalist religious structure is a creative community," says Lee Smolin. For proof, he refers to his Marxist grandmother and his Marxist friends.

First, today, hundreds of thousands of people who claim to be Marxists actually adhere to castrated, perverted Marxism, that was in the USSR.
Secondly, whether Smolin should know what high Arab culture, including astronomy, is. In the bowels of Hinduism, a system of numbers, which we now call Arabic, appeared, and writing, history, and mathematics began to develop in the churches. Even in Hitler's Germany, there was a lot of creativity. Lee Smolin probably doesn't know that the success of American space exploration is due solely to the Nazi SS officer Werner von Braun.

Third, Lee Smolin calls the Soviet leading world schools in cosmonautics, philosophy, cinema, literature, and theater not creative. It was necessary to think of declaring Blokhintsev, who discovered the Lamb shift, Landau, Kapitsa, chemist Semenov, Michurin, Zeldovich, Ermolyeva, Kurchatov, Ginzburg, Keldysh, Petrovsky, Kolmogorov, Pontryagin, etc., etc., not to mention the outstanding engineers as Korolyev and technologists-people uncreative. Apparently, Lee Smolin never saw the best Soviet ballet in the world, such poets as Tvardovsky, Simonov, Rubtsov, Vampilov, Zhdanov, Kalpidi, etc., such writers as Kataev, Rasputin, Makanin, etc., did not read, such composers as Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Sviridov, Schnittke - did not hear.
Fourth. Why did Smolin assume that the USSR is a Marxist country??
Thus, the creative Smolin thinks in propaganda cliches.

***

But then the scientist discards the false principle of falsifiability and turns directly to experimental verification – if there is no such thing, then there is no theory.
Then the physicist discards all the cliches of bourgeois propaganda, he turns not even to science as such, but to society, he begins to see the world as it is. Lee Smolin begins to denounce bourgeois society "from a phenomenological point of view."

"Over the past thirty years, - writes Lee Smolin, - theorists have proposed at least a dozen new approaches. Each approach has been motivated by compelling hypotheses, but none has been successful to date. In the field of particle physics, these approaches included technicolor, preon models, and supersymmetry. In the space-time domain, these approaches included twistor theory, causal series, supergravity, dynamic triangulations, and loop quantum gravity. String theory... does not make new predictions that are testable by today's - or even conceivable today-experiments. Even if we restrict ourselves to theories that agree with some basic observable facts about our universe, such as its enormous size and the existence of dark energy, we are left with about 10 to the power of 500 different string theories — which means one with 500 zeros after it, more than the number of all the atoms in the known universe. With such a monstrous number of theories, there is almost no hope that we will be able to identify the result of an experiment that would not be performed by one of them. Thus, no matter what the experiment shows, string theory cannot be disproved. But the opposite is also the case: no experiments will ever be made to verify its correctness. The string theories that we know how to study are known to be flawed. Those that we cannot study are thought to exist in such gigantic quantities that no conceivable experiment can ever disprove them all…»

Lee Smolin quotes David Gross, a Nobel laureate in particle physics: "We don't know what we're talking about… The state of physics today is similar to what it was when we were puzzled by radioactivity… They have lost something absolutely fundamental. We may have lost something as solid as they did back then" [1].

The scientist gives the formula of the polemic: "How can you not see the beauty of the theory? How could a theory do all this and not be true?" say string theorists. This provokes an equally heated response from skeptics: “Have you lost your mind? How can you believe so strongly in any theory in the complete absence of experimental verification? Have you forgotten how science allows for results? How can you be sure that you are right when you don't even know what the theory is?..”

And then-quite frankly: "... in the United States, a theorist who deals with approaches to fundamental physics other than string theory has almost no career opportunities… This harms science, because it forces us to abandon research in alternative directions, some of which are very promising. How is it possible that string theory, which has been studied by more than a thousand brilliant and well-educated scientists, working in the best conditions, is in danger of failure? This has surprised me for a long time, but now I think I know the answer. What, I am sure, has failed is not only a single theory, but a style of science that was well suited to the problems we faced in the mid-twentieth century, but has ceased to be suitable for the kinds of fundamental problems we face now. The standard model of particle physics was a triumph of the particular way of doing science that had come to dominate physics since the 1940s.

This style is pragmatic and realistic, and encourages virtuosity in calculations when pondering difficult conceptual problems. This is very different from the way that Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and other revolutionaries of the early twentieth century who did science. Their work arose from deep reflection on the most basic questions of surrounding space, time and matter, and they saw that they were part of the broad philosophical tradition in which they were at home. ... I am extremely concerned about a trend in which only one line of research is fully supported, while other promising approaches are starving to death. ... This is a trend with tragic consequences if, as I will argue, the truth lies in a direction that requires a radical rethinking of our basic ideas about space, time, and the quantum world".

This is a torn consciousness - between the surrounding world and outdated idealistic cliches. Smolin sees a way out of this situation in the search for a new IDEA.

Idealism

In 1974, in a conversation with Yuri Nepomnyashchiy, an associate professor of the Perm University, a specialist in liquid helium, I noticed that in the future, both physicists and all scientists, in order to be professionals, to make scientific discoveries, will need to thoroughly know philosophy. Nepomnyashchy haughtily replied that physicists only need to take philosophy into account.
In 2007, Lee Smolin proposed to include philosophical propositions in the system of axioms in the plan of returning to Einstein's philosophy. However, these propositions are taken by him exclusively from bourgeois, idealistic philosophy.

Quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity were discovered not in line with the idealistic philosophical tradition, but in spite of it.
The great scientific discoveries of the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries were due to the collapse of feudalism, and the growing capitalism required science, not religion. The greatest discoveries of the early twentieth century were made because the October Revolution took place, it is called the Russian revolution, it did not become a world revolution, but it was prepared by the course of social development of the whole world.

Lee Smolin understands revolutions only like revolutions in science, that is, he ignores social revolutions, thus he breaks up the connection between the social revolutions and the revolutions in science:
"Physics has always seemed to its leaders almost complete. This complacency is broken only during revolutions, when honest people are forced to admit that they do not know the basics. But even revolutionaries still imagine that the main idea — the one that will unite everything and bring the search for knowledge to an end - lies just around the corner. We have been living in one of these revolutionary periods for a century. The last such period was the Copernican revolution, which arose in the early sixteenth century, during which the Aristotelian theories of space, time, motion, and cosmology were overthrown." Whether Smolin confuses the concept of a geocentric system and the concept of space-time, Aristotle, meanwhile, correctly pointed out the controvercy of motion in space-time, Copernicus did not change the concepts of space, time and motion, instead of the geocentric concept of the world, he proposed a heliocentric one.
Completely different concepts of space-time were overthrown: the subjective-idealistic view of St. Augustine, mechanistic views etc.

Lee Smolin clarifies: “In the universe of Ptolemy and Aristotle, there is a great difference between the concepts of being in motion and being at rest. Ptolemy suggested that certain bodies in the sky - the Sun, the Moon, and the five planets known to him-move in circles, which themselves move in circles. These so-called epicycles made it possible to predict eclipses and planetary movements-predictions that had an accuracy of 1 part per 1000, thus showing the fruitfulness of combining the Sun, Moon, and planets. Aristotle gave a natural explanation for finding the Earth at the center of the universe: it consists of terrestrial matter, whose nature is not to move in circles, but to strive for the center ... the planets should be considered one with the Earth, but not with the Sun, in an image that should be extremely unsettling. If the Earth is a planet, then it and everything on it is in continuous motion. How can this be? This violated Aristotle's law that everything that is not in the heavenly circles must come to rest…”

This is a misinterpretation of Aristotle's theory. Aristotle believed that the nature of all bodies, not just the Earth, is to strive towards the center, since the Earth is stationary, it is already in the center. The astronomer Claudius Ptolemy was of the same opinion. Ptolemy proved the absence of an axial rotation of the Earth as follows: if the Earth were rotating, then "...all objects that do not rest on the Earth must seem to make the same movement in the opposite direction." Of course, there was no accuracy in 1/1000, Ptolemy's theory satisfied only observations with the naked eye.
To make ends meet, the system was constantly complicated, and although its criticism was severely suppressed by the Christian Church, by the beginning of the XVI century, the Ptolemaic system was so complex that it could not meet the requirements of practice, including navigation.
Let us emphasize: in the absence of the possibility of experiment, Ptolemy turns to geometry, not to physics.

A distorted view of ancient philosophy and science does not go unpunished.
Smolin appeals to subjective idealism in the question of the incompleteness of quantum mechanics (QM):
“The core of our inability to complete the current scientific revolution consists of 5 problems… These problems ... remain unresolved... it is worth taking a brief look at each. The first is that the combination of GRT and QM... QM does not tell the full story… It cannot be that reality depends on our existence. The problem of the absence of observers cannot be solved by addressing the possibility of the existence of alien civilizations, because there was a time when the world existed, but it was too hot and dense for organized intelligence to exist. Philosophers call this view realism... the world must exist independently of us. It follows that the terms in which science describes reality cannot include in any significant way the fact that we choose to measure or not to measure. QM... is not easily adjusted to realism... because the theory assumes the division of nature into two parts... there is an observable system. We, the observers, are on the other side. We have the tools that we use to conduct experiments and make measurements, and the clocks that we use to record when certain things happened. QM can be described, if we use a new kind of language, in a dialogue between us and the system that we are exploring with our tools. This quantum language contains verbs that denote our preparations and measurements, and nouns that denote what is then observed. It doesn't tell us anything about what the world will look like in our absence. Many of the founders of QM, including Einstein, Schrodinger, and de Broglie, found this approach to physics repugnant. They were realists. For them, KM, no matter how well it worked, was an incomplete theory, since it did not provide a picture of reality in the absence of our interaction with it. On the other side were Bohr, Heisenberg... they were taking such a new way of approaching science. What you see as a dimension, I see as 2 physical systems interacting with each other... if you agree that it is good to have an observer's influence as part of the theory, the theory as such is not sufficient. The QM should be expanded to take into account many other descriptions depending on who the observer is ... realism as a philosophy is simply extinct... I must admit that I am a realist. I am on the side of Einstein and others who believed that QM is an incomplete description of reality ... The mechanists had a great idea that would unite physics: everything that exists is matter...”

Lee Smolin is wrong, the atom is a quantum system, it functions as a quantum system even in our absence, without any observers.
Realism in England at the beginning of the XX century and in the philosophy of science of the second half of the XX century – asserts the correspondence of theoretical objects to objects existing in nature. Scholastic realism postulates the existence of general concepts in nature, like things. Lee Smolin substitutes the wrong term for the category of materialism. The position about the materiality of the world is not given by the mechanists, among the mechanists were the idealists Descartes, Kant, Laplace, and even in some matters the dialectician Hegel, who attributed randomness to the external.

The next substitution is in the replacement of the "material measuring device" system with the "observer" system. This makes it possible to declare QM subjective, that is, not a science, but the quantum world-dependent on the subject, with which Lee Smolin cannot agree, but declares the question is opend.
The process of measuring quantum quantities is specific, it does not cover the entire QM. But in the theory of probability, the picture is the same: the conditions that the experimenter prepares for a probabilistic event to occur must necessarily be rough.
However, Einstein insisted on something else: QM is incomplete because it does not give the same picture as classical mechanics, whose philosophy is based on mechanismism. QM shows that mechanistic ideas about the world are limited. But QM by no means rejects dialectical materialism, so the problem of the incompleteness of QM is far-fetched.
Gross is right: physicists have indeed "lost something absolutely fundamental".

Degradation

Lee Smolin complains that the works of Soviet scientists were not known.
This is not true, in the 80s Zeldovich, Ivanenko, Ginzburg, Frolov, Linde and many other Soviet scientists, even provincial Permian hydrodynamicists had extensive contacts with foreign scientists and were published in foreign scientific journals.

"...almost everything about Newton is unique and incomprehensible " - Lee Smolin is sure.
No, not unique: Newton could not have done anything without the laws of Kepler, who, in turn, derived them from the data of Tycho Brahe, which he stole. Leibniz discovered differential calculus before Newton, and Hooke discovered the law of universal gravitation. But Newton went to any lengths to prove his priority.

In the history of the creation of SRT, Smolin does without Michelson and Morley (establishing the independence of the speed of light from the speed of the light source), without Lorentz, Minkowski and Poincare, in the history of the creation of GRT – without Urbain Leverrier (the displacement of the perihelion of Mercury), Arthur Eddington (the deflection of a ray of light near the Sun), Gilbert and Friedman.

"By the 1930s, we also knew that the universe contained gigantic numbers of galaxies like our own, and we learned that they were moving away from each other. The implications were not yet clear, but we learned that we live in an expanding universe".
Lee Smolin forgot about the discovery of the Slipher in 1914 of the scattering of galaxies and the approach of the Andromeda nebula.

"By 1780, when Antoine Lavoisier's quantitative chemical experiments showed that matter is conserved, Isaac Newton's laws of motion and gravity had already been in place for almost a hundred years".
The law of conservation of mass was theoretically described in 1748 and experimentally confirmed in 1756 by the Russian scientist M. V. Lomonosov, 33 years before Lavoisier.

"...the standard model, - writes Lee Smolin, - told us exactly how protons and neutrons are assembled from quarks that are held together by gluons, carriers of the strong nuclear interaction. For the first time in the history of fundamental physics, a theory coincided with an experiment. Since that moment, not a single experiment has been made that does not correspond to this model or GRT".
Lee Smolin understands fundamental physics exclusively as the physics of elementary particles.

"By 1980, Stephen Hawking had already made a fantastic prediction about what black holes emit".
In fact, it was Hawking who for a long time resisted the idea of black hole radiation, but Zeldovich, Gribov and Starobinsky managed to convince him.

"In 1981, cosmologist Alan Guth proposed a scenario for the very early history of the universe called inflation. Roughly speaking, this theory states that the universe went through a giant growth spurt at a very early point in its life, and this explains why the universe looks almost exactly the same in every direction. The theory of inflation made predictions that seemed dubious until a decade ago, when the evidence began to arrive. As it is written, a few mysteries remain, but the entire body of evidence supports the predictions of inflation".
Smolin does not link the names of Linde and Starobinsky to the theory of inflation.

"Another example is the erroneous proof of the impossibility of hidden variables in quantum theory, published by John von Neumann in 1932 and widely cited for thirty years, until the quantum theorist David Bohm found the theory of hidden variables."
That is: is Smolin familiar with Bell's inequalities, but does not link them in any way to Bohm's theory? With a high degree of accuracy, the experiment shows that Bell's inequality does not hold, that is, no hidden parameters exist.

“In 1986, Abey Ashtekar, who worked at Syracuse University, reported on "a reformulation of GRT that makes its equations much simpler. Interestingly enough, he did this by expressing Einstein's theory in a form very close to that of gauge theories - the theories underlying the standard model of particle physics".

Lee Smolin calls this theory amazing, revolutionary, but its author is not Ashtekar. The idea of gauge gravity was proposed by the Soviet physicist E. Gapon and Werner Heisenberg, and then, in the early 80's, it was developed by D. Gapon. Ivanenko, G. Sardanashvili and the author of this text.
There are two gauge symmetries for the gravitational field. The first one is given by general covariant transformations of tensor quantities. The field of gauge general covariant symmetry can be easily identified with the connectivity of the gravitational field (Christoffel symbols). Indeed, the expressions for the covariant derivative and gauge connectivity transformations resemble similar expressions for the Yang-Mills field. However, it is obvious that deviations from the Minkowski metric cannot be identified with Goldstone components, and an infinite continuous manifold cannot be isomorphic to a finite discrete one. There is no similar expression for the metric tensor. The attempt to reduce an arbitrary metric to the Higgs scheme, i.e. to equate form with content dualistically, leads only to a transition to the tetrad formalism.

The mathematician Ludwig Fadeev, without whose work string theory would not have taken place , is a reductionist and knows this, he seriously believes that chemistry is " the ultimate science, it supposedly fully explains the Schrodinger equation, although this equation does not even describe the light from a light bulb. Moreover, Fadeev seriously believes that there will come a time when theory will explain everything.

Even Lenin, in his book Materialism and Empirio-criticism, warned that even the most brilliant scientists should not be trusted when it comes to society. Today, as we can see from Lee Smolin's book, things are much worse: physicists can no longer be trusted in physics.
Even de Broglie claimed the completely wrong position that there is no pressure inside the gas, it is only on the walls of the vessel, Hawking claimed that thermodynamics supposedly allocates the arrow of time.
Now in Russia, many physicists study torsion fields that do not exist in nature, leading theoretical physicists talk about the effect of consciousness on the experiment, employees of the Kurchatov Institute measure the intensity of Favor light, etc.

Publicist Michio Kaku, a specialist in string theory, adheres to the interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated by von Neumann, that is, frankly subjectively idealistic, clearly inconsistent with the experiment.
These examples once again show that in physics one can not know everything, the last universal physicists in the field of theoretical physics were Feynman, Holdan, Landau, their era is over.
But the point is different – the problem is in the structural gap of physics.

Lee Smolin analyzes theoretical physics based on the historiosophy of theoretical physics itself. Let's expand its scope.

Sociology

Not only the humanitarian intelligentsia feels above the classes, but also the scientific and technical intelligentsia. Although scientists are extremely dependent on both the bourgeois and the working class, they prefer to choose the bourgeois mentality. Lee Smolin explicitly states that his passion was not the study, not the comprehension of nature, not the use of the acquired knowledge in life, but the construction of theoretical schemes. Isn't that what ideologists and political strategists of all parties, from the ultra-right to the ultra-left, are doing now?

"... we must prove that science is more than sociology, more than academic politics, we must have the notion that science is what it consists of, but more than the idea of a self-governing community of human beings. To prove that a particular form of organization, a particular behavior, is good or bad for science, we must have a basis for making value judgments that go beyond what is popular. We should have a reason to disagree with the majority without being labeled as eccentric originals", - the scientist writes.

Lee Smolin contrasts the unconscious domination of the bourgeoisie with the domination (dictatorship) of the intelligentsia: "We must give the advantage to the Einsteins - people who think for themselves and ignore the established ideas of powerful higher scientists".
But he immediately writes: "... in order for the community to continue to exist, there must be mechanisms for correction: elders... "And he links this caste with the "democratic process"!

Democracy in translation – the power of demos, of course, such did not exist in ancient Greece, in the twentieth century this concept was equated with freedom for the bourgeois. We read how Lee Smolin understands democracy: "The most basic idea of democracy is that society will function better when disputes are resolved peacefully". It is strange, but the whole history of the United States contradicts this understanding: in Cuba, in El Salvador, in China, in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, and even in the USSR during the intervention after the October Revolution.

Thus, Lee Smolin separates physicists from society and places them above society as a special caste with privileges. This is exactly what Stalin reasoned: the party should be made up of special people, a kind of swordsmen. This is exactly what Stalin reasoned when he contrasted Lysenko, whom he had enrolled in the Einstein caste, with the powerful higher-level "bourgeois" genetics.
The question of who (and what) will determine whether an individual is Einstein, Whether Smolin is not asked.
Nor is he interested in the question whether the workers, by virtue of their depersonalizing labor, are capable of independent thinking, and in this connection whether scientists who are completely dependent on the depersonalizing labor of the workers and the dictates of capital, are capable of independent, unbiased thinking.

Therefore, like the humanitarian intelligentsia, the thinking of scientists is broken, it either ignores practice, or subconsciously feels the theory (i.e., itself) dominant, primary.
Lee Smolin mentions the importance of the experiment, but reports: "We can say that science progresses when scientists reach a consensus on the issue".
The practice was left out of the brackets. Marx explained: "There is nothing in science but its practical application".

Of course, science is not utilitarian, it does not live in the present day. Otherwise, it would be reduced to a set of technical techniques. Stars are not money, you can't put them in your pocket. However, the absolutization of non-utilitarianism leads to idealism and, sooner or later, to a crisis.

Lee Smolin demonstrates his lack of understanding of dialectical materialism by his lack of understanding of multi-faceted positivism: "In the 1920s and 1930s, a philosophical movement called logical positivism grew up in Vienna. Logical positivists assumed that statements become knowledge when they are verified by observations of the world… Their motive was to rid philosophy of metaphysics, which filled huge volumes with statements that did not make contact with reality".

The Positivists did not rebel against metaphysics, they rebelled against the philosophy of Marxism.
Soviet physicists also wanted to rid science of ersatz Marxism, which indicates how and where it should develop.
Attributing to the positivists the Marxist position that it is necessary to test the theory by practice, the scientist, without any hesitation, asserts that "verificationism" has failed. That is, the principle of testing the theory by practice allegedly failed.

Smolin is not familiar with the works of Vizgin, Gemmer, Karpovich, A. S. Davydov, Gutner, Kazyutinsky, Yuri Molchanov, Idlis, Koblov, Treder, Meskov, and many others who thoroughly investigated the philosophical problems of physics.
Relying on the philosophy of K. Popper, R. Carnap, P. Feyerabend, I. Lakatos, Lee Smolin categorically declares: "... philosophers have not been able to discover a general strategy that would explain how science works".

It is argued that Lakatos gave new content to the principle of falsificationism as the methodological basis of the theory of scientific rationality. According to this principle, the rationality of scientific activity is confirmed by the willingness of the scientist to recognize refuted any scientific hypothesis when it is faced with a contradictory experience (not only to recognize, but also to strive for possible refutations of their own hypotheses).
Any scientist first checks whether the experiment is set correctly. But imagine a scientist who, despite experience, persists and does not want to admit a hypothesis that contradicts experience! Moreover, as soon as a scientist puts forward a hypothesis, he is immediately obliged to refute it. Then why put it forward? But a good scientist is one who puts forward a hypothesis without seeing any objections in advance. Thus, the Lakatos principle is meaningless.
But the scientific community asserts that "the Lakatos methodology is the most important tool for the rational analysis of science, one of the most significant achievements of the methodology of science in the twentieth century" [2].

On the contrary, Lakatos presented science as a competitive struggle of "research programs" consisting of a "hard core" of a priori accepted fundamental assumptions that cannot be refuted within the program, and a "safety belt" of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses that are modified and adapted to the program's counterexamples. The evolution of a particular program occurs due to the modification and refinement of the "safety belt", while the destruction of the" hard core " means the cancellation of the program and its replacement with another, competing one. There is no shadow of experience or practice here. This is how Wikipedia puts it.

In 1968, in the 4th issue of the journal "Questions of Philosophy", a review was published by g. P Shchedrovitsky on the book published in the USSR by Lakatos " Proofs and refutations. How theorems are proved." The Soviet philosopher Shchedrovitsky admired the book.
It is extremely difficult to say that Shchedrovitsky, who taught a lot of Soviet students from his textbooks, is a major philosopher.

The depth of Lakatos ' creative vision can be easily assessed by his program for the development of mathematical theory: 1) the operation of the method of "naive" trial and error until a plausible hypothesis is found, 2) the introduction of the method of proof and refutation, which is an attempt to prove an assumption and improve it by counterexamples, 3) the application of the method of research programs, when the hypothesis is no longer in doubt. That is all.
The progress of science for Lakatos is when theory outstrips practice. If a theory explains facts only by hypotheses, it regresses. A theory can be eliminated by a better one, "which has more empirical content than its predecessor, and some of this content is subsequently confirmed". The abyss of thought!
Although Lakatos was familiar with dialectics through Marx, Lenin, and Lukacs, of course, there was no question of any practical verification. The method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete and back to the concrete universal is also forgotten. Although the researchers are sure-in this book, Lakatos applied a Marxist methodology.
The point is that the degeneration of Marxism took place not only in the USSR, but also in Hungary.

Lee Smolin wants to appeal to philosophy, but turns to philosophers who somehow deny it – to the neo-positivists [3].

Ideologization

Lee Smolin states: "My hypothesis is that the mistake with string theory is the fact that it developed using a style of particle physics research that is hardly applicable to the discovery of new theoretical schemes. The style that led to the success of the standard model is also difficult to maintain when the connection with the experiment is broken… Why did a style less suited to solving the problems at hand become dominant in physics, both in the United States and in Europe? This is a sociological question… Universities stopped growing in the early 1970s.; despite this, the professors hired in the previous era continued to train graduate students at a steady pace, which meant a significant overproduction of new PhDs in physics and other sciences. As a result, there is fierce competition for places in research universities and colleges at all levels of the academic hierarchy. There is also a much greater emphasis on paid professorships, which are funded by research agencies. This is a great narrowing of alternatives for people who would like to run their own research programs, but instead follow programs initiated by higher-level scientists. So there are fewer and fewer corners in which a creative person can hide, protected by some kind of academic work, and develop risky and original ideas... The pace of innovation in course planning and teaching methods is positively medieval... the number of American students graduating with a degree in physics has decreased over the decades"ю

The education system in the United States followed the path of simplifying knowledge, a test system was introduced, a system of ridiculous presentations (all this is now accepted in the Russian Federation).
In physics, there is a gap between "applied" physics and mathematized (not mathematical!) physics. Physicists in the field of high energy or quantum field theory are illiterate in traditional physics. But what are the reasons?

Ott and Einstein obtained two expressions for the relativistic temperature transformation with a direct and inverse dependence on the Lorentz factor, and both were wrong, but Tolman believes that both expressions are valid. I have already written about the elementary mistakes of de Broglie and Hawking above.
However, today the situation is much more painful.
In Perm, the doctor of the Polytechnic University believes that radiation and X-rays are "almost the same thing", that the temperature of the liquid increases due to the friction of the molecules against each other. At the same time, the journals of the HAC list give articles on theoretical physics to doctors of technical sciences who are unable to understand theoretical physics, and worse-the editors give articles for review to their children, who, after searching for information on the Internet, write illiterate refusals.
In Perm, a theoretical physicist, a professor at the classical university, does not know that a mathematical pendulum does not have a set of natural frequencies, an associate professor of the university, who is engaged in cosmology, does not know that bodies expand when heated, that the orbital and spin moments of an electron are of the same order of magnitude, and believes that 10 billion years ago, there were no stars, and his hand, which he moves up and down, considers a precision instrument for measuring temperature (I showed him that the gravitational field violates the 1st law of thermodynamics). Another associate professor, also a cosmologist, lectures on the topology of the Universe, but can not solve a school problem on topology, another associate professor seriously believes that physics began with Galileo. Not to mention the faculties of the humanities, where the faculty was so thoroughly reorganized that the dean of one of them believes that in ancient Greece society was devoid of class conflicts, that the slave, that is not a slave, did not matter, the slaves were free – because of democracy.

In Perm, a theoretical physicist, a professor at the classical university, does not know that a mathematical pendulum does not have a set of natural frequencies, an associate professor of the university, who is engaged in cosmology, does not know that bodies expand when heated, that the orbital and spin moments of an electron are of the same order of magnitude, and believes that 10 billion years ago, there were no stars, and his hand, which he moves up and down, considers a precision instrument for measuring temperature (I showed him that the gravitational field violates the 1st law of thermodynamics). Another associate professor, also a cosmologist, lectures on the topology of the Universe, but can not solve a school problem on topology, another associate professor seriously believes that physics began with Galileo. Not to mention the faculties of the humanities, where the faculty was so thoroughly reorganized that the dean of one of them believes that in ancient Greece society was devoid of class conflicts, that the slave, what is not a slave, did not matter, the slaves were free – for democracy.

If there was only one ideological subject per year in the humanities faculties (or the history of the CPSU, or philosophy, or political economy, or scientific communism) in the USSR, today ALL subjects are permeated with ideology, completely subordinated to liberal-democratic propaganda.

Lee Smolin quotes particle physicist Jo Ann Hewitt at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center: "I find the arrogance of some string theorists astounding, even by the standards of physicists. Some sincerely believe that all non-string theorists are second-class scientists... young string theorists are usually poorly educated in particle physics. Some literally found it difficult to name the fundamental particles of nature."
The scientist is surprised by the fact that a caste mentality has emerged among physicists in bourgeois society!

"When discussing the current state of affairs with young string theorists, you often hear them say things like: “I'm confident in theory, but I hate sociology”... More than one friend has announced to me that “the community has decided that string theory is correct, and there is nothing you can do about it. You can't fight sociology”... I became convinced that we should talk about the sociology of theoretical physics, since the phenomenon to which we collectively refer as "sociology" has a significant negative impact on its progress".

But the sociology of theoretical physics does not exist separately from the sociology of the entire bourgeois society.
"There is good evidence that the progress of string theory itself has been slowed down by sociology, which restricts the set of questions to be explored, and excludes as the kind of imaginative and independent-minded scientists that progress requires".
But why limit yourself so much? Due to the fact that industry annually requires millions of factory workers, office workers, engaged in monotonous depersonalizing work, every year tens of millions of the most talented children are eliminated, do not receive a university education and access to creative work.
However, Lee Smolin ignores the sociology of classes, he turns to the sociology of abstract groups.

"It turns out that sociologists have no problems in understanding this phenomenon… this phenomenon is described in the literature under the name groupthink. Yale University psychologist Irwin Janis, who coined the term in the 1970s, defines groupthink as "a way of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply contained in a close-knit, self-contained group, where the members' desire for unanimity dominates the motivation for realistic alternative modes of action." According to this definition, groupthink occurs only when there is great cohesion. This requires that the group members share a strong "shared sense" of solidarity and are very willing to maintain the relationship within the group at all costs. When colleagues act in groupthink mode, they automatically apply the "maintaining group harmony" test to every decision that comes before them. Janis has studied the failures of decisions made by expert groups, such as the Bay of Pigs. The term has since been applied to many other examples, including the failure of NASA to prevent the Challenger disaster, the failure of the West to anticipate the collapse of the Soviet Union, the failure of American automobile companies to anticipate the demand for small cars, and most recently — perhaps most perniciously — the Bush administration's pursuit of war on the basis of the false belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Here is a description of groupthink extracted from the University of Oregon's communication website: groupthink participants see themselves as part of a closed group working against an outside group opposing their goals. You can tell if a group is susceptible to groupthink if it: 1. overestimates its invulnerability or high moral standards, 2. collectively provides a rationalistic explanation for the decisions it makes, 3.demonizes or stereotypically views external groups and their leaders, 4. has a culture of homogeneity, where the individual censors himself and others so that the facade of group unanimity is maintained, and 5. contains members who commit themselves to protecting the group leader by withholding information from the leader from them or from other members of the group. It doesn't match up one-on-one with my characteristics of string theory culture, but it's close enough to worry about".

The collapse of the USSR, we repeat, was predicted by Trotsky, and in the 50s-by the Soviet political economists-Marxists, who, of course, did not report their views to the country's leadership.
Imagine – the whole world knows that Bush had no false belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Only average Americans had it, but the US leadership itself was well aware that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The whole world knows why Bush needed this deception. Only the world's leading physicists still can't understand it!
Psychology is absolutely irrelevant here, the class interest of the American bourgeoisie is at work here.
Similarly, psychology has nothing to do with the situation with "string" theorists. As Lenin said, anyone who explains the actions of a particular politician by the psychological characteristics of his character is a fraud. In the case of the group social infantilism of physicists, this is also a manifestation of the class instinct, which Lenin described very clearly in his famous letter to Gorky, assessing the essence of the intelligentsia.

Lee Smolin is amazed by what is happening, he has spent his entire life" behind glass", isolated from life, and wants to isolate himself from life with psychology, but it unceremoniously invades the world of theoretical physics. The scientist only quotes the opinion of an honest bourgeois in a footnote:
“John Kenneth Galbraith, an influential economist, called it “traditional wisdom”. He meant by this "beliefs that, although not well founded, are so widely accepted among the rich and powerful that only the rash and reckless will jeopardize their careers by disagreeing with them" [4].
The word "rich" is pronounced, Galbraith only forgot to mention that any group "delusions" of the upper classes always serve the group interests of the bourgeoisie.
"I was shocked," the scientist writes", when Laughlin told me that he was under pressure from his department and funding agency to pursue normal science in the field in which he worked, instead of spending time on his new ideas about space, time, and gravity. If such a person, after all his achievements, including the Nobel Prize, cannot be trusted to hunt for his deepest ideas, then what does academic freedom mean?”
"Funding bodies and foundations, - Lee Smolin demands, - should enable scientists at every level of research and development of viable assumptions to solve deep and difficult problems".

But the fact is that the main goal of the funding bodies and funds is profit. This is a law that is not violated by any scientist, and many simply do not see it. Lee Smolin does not even know that the Nobel Prize has long been an instrument of politics and is devalued.
The naivety of Lee Smolin extends to philosophy, for him the authority is Paul Feyerabend. "The book of Feyerabend told me this: Listen, child, stop dreaming! Science is not a gathering of philosophers in the clouds. This is a human activity, as complex and problematic as any other."

Feyerabend, alas, did not inform the scientist that science is part of capitalist production. At a personal meeting, the master gave him, as Lee Smolin writes, "invaluable advice": "Yes, the academic world has deteriorated, and there is nothing you can do about it". Hegel, Plekhanov, Ilyenkov, Kant, Gramsci, Lukacs (Lakatos ' teacher), Batishchev, Cassidy, and two dozen other world-class thinkers smoke nervously on the sidelines. Scientist reports that Feyerabend "considered the question of why science works as having no answer". He might as well have continued to introduce Lee Smolin to the heights of philosophy by offering to run for a beer.

Feyerabend also argued that "even in cases where there is a widely accepted theory that is consistent with all the facts, it is still necessary to invent competing theories in order to ensure the progress of science".
The ideologeme "competition" dominates the consciousness of Feyerabend and Lee Smolin. That is: it is necessary to act out of meanness. Not to study nature and thus achieve progress, but to try to harm the competitor. If the husband says " shaved", the wife is obliged to prove that "cut".

But Feyerabend, unlike Lee Smolin, calls a spade a spade: intolerance and dogmatism rule in science, anti-scientific works are recognized as scientific and strictly protected, the authority of scientists stifles everything new, technical achievements are usurped by scientific clans. Feyerabend does not shy away from the concept of "capitalism", he sees that in bourgeois society, science is a means of exploitation and, like any other state institution, is used by the authorities to manipulate the mass consciousness.

And... how does science work? "...science works because we live in a world of regularities ... "
I.e., Lee Smolin has no idea about the relationship of the particular, the special and the general, the object and the subject, about the dialectic of necessity and randomness, about the transition of quantity to quality, etc. The whole struggle in philosophy has passed him by, and indeed the whole history of mankind. Li Smolin does not want to understand that the materiality of the world and the dialectical laws of the development of matter are the basis of repeatability, regularity. Lee Smolin forgets that repeatability doesn't mean anything – although this is what neo-positivism is based on.

Finally, the scientist's verdict follows: "... science succeeds because scientists make up a community that is defined and maintained by strict adherence to a common ethic. It is precisely a commitment to ethics, not a commitment to any particular fact or theory, that I believe persists as a fundamental regulator within the scientific community".
Has the world gone mad?

If, in speaking of the string theory community, Lee Smolin, as a physicist, is rebelling against the tenets accepted by the community, in this paragraph he welcomes his enemy and asserts it as an indicator of progress.

"There are two principles of this ethics," says the scientist: 1. if a problem can be solved by conscientious people by applying a rational argument to publicly available evidence, then we need to consider how to solve it in this way; 2.if, on the other hand, a rational argument derived from publicly available data has failed to bring conscientious people to an agreement on the problem, then society should allow and even encourage people to draw different conclusions from the data. I am sure that science succeeds because scientists adhere to these two principles…»
No more, no less. This childish statement essentially means that science works solely because scientists are well-mannered.
But scientists are ill-mannered, they strangle each other.

Conclusion

Imagine what mental attempts are made by opponents of Lee Smolin, Polchinsky, etc., if in his criticism of string theorists Lee Smolin is absolutely right?
Science is indeed in a crisis, since theoretical physicists turn out to be intellectually impotent.

Linde and many other physicists have long included the anti-scientific philosophical anthropic principle in the axiomatics of physics [5].
Lee Smolin suggests including the principle of causality in the axiom system: "... many of us, working on quantum gravity, believe that causality itself is fundamental - and thus makes sense even at a level where the concepts of space and time disappear. Ambjorn, Lall, and others have shown that if the causality constraint is not established, then classical space-time geometry does not arise. (Hawking believed that the causal structure is immaterial, and that calculations in quantum gravity can be made while ignoring the difference between time and space, time is imaginary). One such formulation, called causal series theory, chose fundamental units of space-time in the form of bare events whose only attributes were lists of other events that could be their cause and of which they could be the cause... it seems to have solved the problem of the cosmological constant. By simply assuming that the classical world arises from causal series theory, Syracuse University physicist Raphael D. Sorkin and his collaborators predicted that the cosmological constant should be about as small as observations subsequently showed".

In fact, causality is only a particular thing, Lenin pointed out that "causality, which we usually understand, is only a part of the universal connection" [6]. Zeldovich, long before Lee Smolin, proposed to introduce an axiom: to reject solutions of Einstein's equations that do not satisfy the principle of causality. But this is not true, physically these solutions correspond to decaying processes.

"...all the triumphant theories, - writes Lee Smolin, - had experimental implications that were easy to develop and could be tested within a few years.... physical insight immediately leads to the prediction of a new physical effect ... string theory, loop quantum gravity did not achieve what was promised on this front. The standard excuse is that experiments on these scales cannot be done... there is something fundamental that we are missing, some erroneous assumption that we are all making... then we need to isolate the erroneous assumption and replace it with a new idea. Why, despite such great efforts by thousands of the most talented and well-trained scientists, has so little progress been made in fundamental physics in the last 25 years?.. The TC community style is an extension of the elementary particle theory culture. This has always been a more brash, aggressive, and competitive atmosphere, in which theorists vie to respond quickly to new developments (until 1980 they were usually experimental), and are suspicious of philosophical problems. This style replaced the more reflective, philosophical style that characterized Einstein and the inventors of QM.…»

Physicists ' suspicion of philosophical problems in the United States is exactly the same as in the USSR, that is, in both countries, instead of philosophy, ideological demagogy prevailed (and still prevails).
The difference between the scientific eras is that QM, SRT, and GR arose not from the internal inconveniences of theories, but from experiment.
For TS, quantum gravity, there are no experiments that would be paradoxical, would violate the previous ideas.
Secondly, the creation of the TS did not follow from the problems of the development of even the theoretical part of physics, which went parallel to the formation of the TS.
In principle, there are a number of objections to string theory [7].

The situation in string theory resembles a well-known joke: a billionaire decided to develop a method to find out who will win the race. I called a zoologist, a mathematician, and a physicist, and gave them a task, a million dollars each, and a year of time. A year later, a zoologist comes: "Knowing the exact pedigree of each horse, the success of its parents, what it was fed, how it was treated, I can accurately name the result." Mathematician: "Having accurate statistics of the previous races of these horses, I can name approximate results." Physicist: "I need another 10 years, $ 50 million, a few assistants and a laboratory, but I have already built a model of the movement of an absolutely elastic spherical horse in a vacuum."
String theory is logical and beautiful, but it is similar to the geometric constructions of Gersonides, Al Bitruji, or Ptolemy.

It is not necessary to change an idea for an idea, but to change the whole way of thinking. This task is impossible inside the office. Its solution involves at least the realization that the point of reference of the regression in science was the collapse of the USSR. We must immediately reject all bourgeois philosophical schemes, all subjective idealism.

Let us repeat: the era of Newton-Darwin did not arise from scratch, it was caused by the transition from feudalism to capitalism.
The great era of social revolutions of the early twentieth century gave rise not only to great discoveries in physics, but also to great literature, poetry, music, and painting.
The collapse of the USSR intensified competition between the US and the EU and pushed capital to reduce wages for labor, to increase the army of the unemployed, etc., and caused a reduction in educational programs around the world.
President Kennedy said: "Soviet education is the best in the world. We have to take a lot out of it. The USSR won the space race for the school desk." Since then, the average length of study in the United States has reached 16 years, while in the USSR – 11 years.
After 1991, the situation changed dramatically. Professor Arnold, returning from the United States in 1997, spoke about the discouragingly low level of education in America.

High school students were given a test: "You had $ 100. After some operations, it became 80% of the initial amount. Do you have a) more, b) less, c) the same amount of dollars? " Only a third of the students answered correctly. In the theory of probability, this means that no one knew the correct answer. American 3rd year students can't compare 2/5 and 3/7 without a calculator. A Russian girl who studied at an American school says: "We were given the task to build a straight line on 10 points. I built two points in a second and was surprised to see that American schoolchildren diligently put all 10 points on the drawing!»
But if general education has regressed, theoretical physics will inevitably regress.

As long as scientists do not begin to understand Marxism-Leninism, first of all, authentic, as long as they do not realize that Marxism-Leninism is part of the world culture, as long as they will be fruitless.

Half a century ago, the last statement was true. Today, only an idealist who puts the idea first can say this. The materialist understands that society has entered a period of regression, social degradation, and science follows the times. You cannot live in society and be free from society, even in thought. For social consciousness is determined by social being.

One way or another, the historical-political-economic approach must be supplemented with Marxist philosophy,
and two propositions of dialectical materialism must be included in the basis of physics.
1) Along with the concept of cycle (cyclicity of processes) and the concept of irreversible qualitative changes, regression as a moment of development (minimum action, dissipation, increase in entropy), make the concept of development as an ascent from the lowest to the highest, from simple to complex, and not only in the form of increasing the number of elements of systems, but complicating their structure, the transformation of potential qualities into actual, dominant.
2) Include with the system of axioms the ideology of contradiction as a source of movement and as an indicator of the development of science [8].

References

1. The new scientist, "The Nobel Laureate admits that string theory is in trouble", The Nobel laureates admit that string theory is in trouble. December, 10, 2005.
2.https://gufo.me/dict/philosophy_encyclopedia/
3. Ikhlov B. L. On the methodology of natural sciences. Neo-positivism. In print.
4. Financial Times, August 12, 2004. Book review.
5. Ikhlov B. L. The anthropic principle. In print.
6. Lenin. Philosophical notebooks. PSS, 5th ed., vol. 29.
7. Ikhlov B. L. On string theory. In print.
8. Ikhlov B. L. On the physical paradigm. Method of production in the USSR. Scientific research of the SCO countries: synergy and Integration. Proceedings of the International Conference, June 24, 2020, China, pp. 153-160. "On THE PARADIGM OF PHYSICS" DOI 10.34660/INF. 2020. 58. 21. 002

LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

Introduction. Immediate threats
After 1-3 billion years, the continuous increase in solar radiation, caused by the accumulation of helium in the core of the sun, will lead to the disappearance of the oceans. After 1 billion years, the core of the Earth will cool. In 250-350 Ma, the continuing supercontinental plate tectonics cycle will lead to the formation of a supercontinent. The precession and nutation of the axis of rotation of the Earth will intensify. For 1.5–4.5 billion years, the tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation will begin to experience chaotic changes with a deviation of up to 90 °.
Oil on the planet will last for 40 years, gas for 60 years. Energy consumption on the planet after World War II doubles every 15-20 years. With cash reserves of uranium doubled growth time - only 200 years. The energy consumption per unit of time will be 5% of the power of the Sun reaching the Earth, the upper limit of the earth’s energy. The average temperature of the earth’s surface will increase by 3 degrees.

Possibility of survival
For analysis, it is natural to consider exoplanets. Here there are problems of communication with extraterrestrial civilizations, the Drake formula is needed, which determines the number of possible contacts:
N = R x fp x ne x f1 x fi x fc x L
where N - the number of intelligent civilizations ready to make contact;
R - the number of stars formed per year in our galaxy = 7; fp - the proportion of stars with planets; Drake rated this factor at 0.5, but this is greatly underestimated.; ne - the average number of planets (and satellites) with suitable conditions for the birth of a civilization> 0.014 (from what is currently known more than 3600 exo-planets, of which 52 are potentially inhabited); fl - the probability of the origin of life on a planet with suitable conditions. (The conditions include the temperature on the planet and the presence of chemical elements necessary for biosynthesis. The temperature on the surface of the planet should range from 0 to 100 degrees Celsius, it depends on the radius of the orbit, around the stars emit a "zone of life." Shu Huang for habitable planets are suitable stars of the main sequence of spectral classes from F5 to K5, of which only second-generation stars, rich in carbon, oxy¬gen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, are chosen. Also, the mass of the planet should be large enough to keep the atmosphere, etc. In 2002, Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis estimated fl as> 0.13 for planets with more than 1 billion years of history based on Earth statistics. Lineweaver also determined that about 10% of stars in the galaxy are suitable for life in terms of the presence of heavy elements, distance from supernovae and fairly stable in structure [18]).
The probability of occurrence of rational life forms on a planet on which life is fi is estimated by Drake as 0.01. fc is the ratio of the number of planets whose reasonable inhabitants are capable of contacting and seeking it, to the number of planets on which there is intelligent life; rated by drake as 0.01. L is the lifetime of such a civilization. Drake's rating is 104 years. Total: R = 7/year, fp = 0,5, ne = 0,014, fl = 0,13, fi = 0,01, fc = 0,01, and L = 10 000 years. We get: N = 7 ; 0,5 ; 0,014 ; 0,13 ; 0,01 ; 0,01 ; 10 000 = 0,00637. N < 1, i.e. no contactors. But to assess the likelihood, you need to know what life is.
Life is the active form of organic protein-nucleic matter. The main attributes of living matter are metabolism, reproducibility, genetic information used for repli¬cation, evolution, self-preservation, feedback, developed in higher forms to sensa¬tion, perception and thinking.
Until the moment of comparison, the concept of "life" can only be defined by attribute. It is necessary to assess the likelihood of the emergence and develop¬ment of living matter in favorable conditions before the advent of intelligent life forms. It must be taken on the order of 100, equal to one, i.e. 100 times more than Drake's estimate - from the position that life arises naturally. Therefore, the share of civilizations capable of establishing contact must also be taken equal to 100%, i.e. also 100 times the Drake rating.
3) Drake correctly estimated the probability of the birth of life in favorable conditions equal to one. But, referring to the so-called. alternative biochemistry, a
variety of life forms that may not exist on a carbon basis, for example, on the basis of arsenic or silicon, it is necessary to accept the average number of planets (and satellites) with suitable conditions for the birth of civilization more than an order of magnitude, i.e. ne> 0.14. (Although the planet is with an arsenic-based life form or in ammonia instead of water or sulfuric acid, and even with mirror-symmetric D-amino acids and L-carbohydrates, it is clearly not suitable for life.) The factor fl should also be taken equal to one.
4) Drake considers only the rate of birth of new stars, correlating with the time of contact attempts, he rejected the already existing stars. Other galaxies cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the parameter R must be increased by at least an order of magnitude.
5) The estimate of the parameter L is incorrect. This time should be increased by at least an order of magnitude. For the reason that sooner or later mankind will have to flee from Earth. Therefore, attempts to establish contact with humanity will be constantly engaged. At the same time, it is necessary to assess what the probability is that a civilization will remain under various cosmic cataclysms such as a collision with an exoplanet of a comet, an asteroid, another planet, a change of planet's poles, etc. If you take the Earth as a sample, you can count this probability equal to 0.01. Total number of contactees in the galaxy is about 104.
Now we begin to reduce the likelihood of contact. First, the solar system is quite remote from the center of the disk, not only for flying in a spacecraft, but also for radio communications. When moving with acceleration a to the middle of the path s and braking on the second segment of the path inside the rocket, time will pass [5] 12 2[cosh(1/ 2)] / a t cas c;= + . 460 kiloparsecs to the Andromeda nebula will take away 30 million years by terrestrial time. So the contact radius for flights with returning is not that large on a cosmic scale. Accordingly, the possible number of civilizations decreases.
On Earth, summer replaces winter because the axis of rotation of the Earth is tilted with respect to the axis of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Hence the ad¬ditional condition - the eccentricity of the planet’s orbit should be almost zero, i.e. the orbit should be almost circular. The difference between the semi-axes of the ellipse along which the planet moves around the star should be much smaller than the deviation of the axis of rotation of the planet from the axis of the orbit. Otherwise, the temperature difference in winter and summer will not allow the formation of stable molecular reproducible structures such as DNA.
It is accepted that the denaturation of two strands of DNA occurs at 900o, par¬tial destruction occurs at 850o. However, DNA does not melt at a certain tempera¬ture, but in the temperature range, since different parts of the molecule melt at different temperatures. Already in the range from 65o to 72o, a number of peaks of heat absorption are observed, and already in this interval the DNA loses its abil¬
ity to replicate. Proteins begin to denature at T > 40o, at the same temperature, the first changes in DNA are observed. Thus, in the Drake's formula, it is necessary to introduce an additional temperature factor, ft, which can reduce the number of possible habitable planets by several orders of magnitude. On the other hand, if we consider that in extremophilic bacteria or in a slug, ripped DNA can be stitched without changes, as well as the ability of proteins to renaturation, you can first carefully assess this factor to be equal to 0.1. Accordingly, the number of contact¬ees is reduced to 103. Further, it is necessary that the motion of satellites around the planet be so balanced that the axis of rotation of the planet does not turn too often or that the magnetic poles do not change places too often. We will also carefully assess the new factor fs = 0,1, and the number of contactees has decreased to 102.
The total number of exoplanets in our galaxy is estimated to be no less than 1011. That is, planets orbiting around other stars. Of these, from 59 to 209 are Earth-like. On 23.4.2015, it was reliably confirmed the existence of 1915 exoplanets in 1210 planetary systems. Let us take the figure indicated above - 3600. Thus, the planet’s selection factor appears, similarly to 0,1 v f = , the number of contactees is reduced to 101, which exactly coincides with the estimate [14] obtained from completely different arguments. Finally, the Drake formula takes the form:
N = R x fv x fs x fp x ne x f1 x fi x fc x L
As we see, those facts that the Sun is a third generation star with an age of 4.5 billion years, and the duration of the evolution of life on Earth since its inception is 3.7 billion years, which is comparable to the age of the universe 14.5 billion years, not reflected in the formula (respectively, and the Kardashev – Kautsa scale, although in the publication Science and Technology of the USSR in 1917-1987, the Kardashev classification is indicated as one of the most important achieve¬ments of Soviet science in 1964. [8] questioning the need to identify the factor R with the number of new star births in a year and nature Avnivat factor L to 105, as Drake did.

Going beyond the galaxy
According to approximate estimates, in 105 years less than 5 billion people will be able to leave the Earth, with the condition that the entire planet will be built by spacecrafts, with modern labor productivity. Perhaps the optical method of communication with extraterrestrial civilizations [11] will help to find habit¬able planets. It would seem that sooner or later humanity will have to go beyond the galactic disk, which has a size of about 30 660 parsec. With a constant ratio of thrust to the mass of the rocket equal to 20 m / s2, this distance can be covered in about 6 years by the clock inside the rocket (by the clock on Earth - about 105 years). To do this, you need to gain at least the 4th cosmic speed, 550 km / s. The question of whether there is enough fuel may be resolved with the implementa¬
tion of the emDrive engine. The installation of the EmDrive was first proposed by engineer Roger Schoer. In 2013-2014, the Cannae Drive engine was tested in the NASA Eagleworks laboratory at the Y.Magarin Space Center. Johnson The work was carried out under the leadership of Harold White, an anomalous result was obtained - a thrust of about 0.0001 N [13]. In the Eagleworks experiment in 2016, anomalous thrust was also obtained, no errors were detected [16]. The government of the People's Republic of China has funded research on the engine since 2010, and EmDrive prototypes have been sent for testing in low-Earth orbit [22]. Obviously, the "violation" of the law of conservation of momentum in ter¬restrial conditions does not occur. It is suggested that the law is violated due to the Casimir effect. In 2001, a group of physicists from Bell Laboratories and Lucent Technologies (G. Chan and others) investigated the Casimir effect for platinum and hemispheres. The plate, placed on two parallel thin piezoelectrodes, could be tilted in both directions relative to the center, forming a torsion pendulum with a small amplitude, and the sphere was located above one of the wings of the plate. In 1997, M. Kardar (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) suggested that if two plates were made corrugated, the Casimir force could be made to act along the surface, the plates would not attract, but move. An experiment performed in the laboratory of Mohidin, confirmed this. Experimenters placed two corrugated gold plates in a vacuum at a distance of several hundred nanometers, combining their convexity and concavity. When the plates were slightly shifted, a force appeared that returned them to their original position. The longitudinal force of Casimir was several piconewtons, it rapidly decreases with distance, but Mohidin is sure that it can easily trigger nanomachines. It is assumed if we calculate the vacuum average of the energy-momentum tensor ik T< > The electromagnetic field for a truncated cone (see [2]) should result in a nonzero pulse, which coincides in order with that found in experiments with emDrive. In this case, the vacuum engine does not need a pumping of the microwave field by the magnetron at all. For an approximate assessment of the thrust force in a simplified problem with a square socket with a small angle ;. Unlike the magnetization side of the angle of the socket, which does not lead to a change in momentum, the Casimir force acts perpendicular to the plane of the angle. Thus, the force acting on the vertical side of the angle is horizontal and does not compensate for the vertical component acting on the inclined side of the angle.
But landing on a planet suitable for life does not mean salvation. 1) If the planet is not yet inhabited by living organisms, it will be the death of earthlings. 2) If there is a higher level intelligent life on the planet, earthlings will exist only for the duration of their own life, the higher mind will not reproduce the lower one. 3) If the planet is inhabited by a lower mind, earthlings will have to destroy this lower mind in order to survive themselves. It will take a billion years - and it will be necessary again to leave the planet. Therefore, the aborigines will be used as a link in the "food chain": as slaves, as carrying organisms, etc. Similarly, all who will arrive on Earth will be occupied with the same. Those. the probability of contact decreases.

About the thermal death of the Universe
The popularizer of String Theory, Brown Green, claims that the Universe will grow larger, the density of matter and energy will fall until they are completely dispersed. So now there is a rather unusual period in the history of the Universe, when such a phenomenon as life can exist.
In 1997–1998, Sol Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess discovered that galaxies fly apart faster than billions of years ago, that is, the Universe expands with increasing acceleration. In the ;CDM model, dark matter with negative pres¬sure is introduced to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. It can be seen from equation (2) that if we assume the presence of matter with negative mass, then the hypothesis of dark matter is not required, the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe will be observed without it. You do not need to increase the Hubble constant. A substance with a negative gravitational or inert mass cannot annihilate with ordinary matter, since it will not be attracted, but repelled from it.
The possibility of the existence of negative mass was suggested by G. Bondi in 1957 [12]. He built models with different negative masses: inert, active and passive gravitational masses. Bondi and Forward have analyzed such exotic particles [17]
This is a negative gravitational mass, so there will be no contradiction with the Higgs models. It may be objected that the presence of a substance with a negative mass will significantly change the history of the early Universe. But the presence of dark matter also changes the history of the early Universe. Morris et al. [21] showed that the Casimir effect can be used to obtain a local region of space-time with negative mass. The forward also proposed the design of a spacecraft engine using negative mass, which does not require an influx of energy and working fluid to obtain arbitrarily large acceleration [19, 20].
At present, particles with a negative effective inert (but not gravitational) mass in the Bose – Einstein condensate have been obtained [15]. I. Banik discovered a giant ring of galaxies that scatter as at the moment of the Big Bang, their arrange¬ment is similar to drops from a rotating umbrella, while the rotation of the ring is not observed [1]. These galaxies fly from the Milky Way at a much higher speed than that determined by the standard cosmological model. In the outer part of the spiral galaxy M81 there is a ring dominated by bright blue stars, and in the center there is a ball of more red stars, which are much older. In the gap between the core and the ring, another ring-shaped galaxy is visible, which is much further. If it is found that the velocities of the center of the rings and the rings themselves are significantly different from the Milky Way, this will be evidence in favor of the presence of negative masses.
The discovery of the hidden mass gave rise to the hope that the Universe would stop its expansion. But the collapse does not promise the best. Perhaps the collapse will stop the Casimir effect. If in cosmological models with expansion the vacuum elasticity is taken into account, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics will be fulfilled only when the energy dominance is not violated [4]. However, we know that the violation of energy dominance in field models is not uncommon [3]. But the question of survival in a different plane. White dwarfs cool down to 1 K in 1017 years. In 1019 years, neutron stars cool to 30 K. In 1032 years, matter will decay into photons and neutrinos. The most massive black holes in the centers of galaxies evaporate over 1096 years.
They also propose a scenario of merging black holes into one, which will either be eternal or shrink to Planck density, which will create a new Big Bang. But this picture is inaccurate and incomplete.
1) Black holes will not be able to merge into one - by virtue of equation (3), with the expansion of the Universe, the collision of galaxies will stop. 2) Galaxies scatter with acceleration. During acceleration, the Unruh effect occurs, the produc¬tion of pairs of particles from a vacuum. The Unruh temperature depends on the acceleration of the reference system a as follows:
T = ha/kc ~ 10-21 a
But the Milky Way is exactly the same as the other galaxies - it is also moving away with acceleration. When the acceleration of the Milky Way reaches a certain size, the galaxy will be penetrated by radiation, an additional source of energy. And, since the vacuum density does not change, it would be possible to draw this extra energy from it infinitely. In order to heat the system by 1 K, it is neces¬sary to accelerate it to 1020 m / с2, so even this degree would have to wait a time many times more than the age of the Universe. From the Hubble Act Acceleration a = H2 r , r = r0 exp(Ht) , modern radius of the Universe r = 1027, taking to estimate that the Hubble constant increased evenly over 7 billion years from zero to the present value of 10-18 , we can calculate when the acceleration reaches the
indicated level: r2 exp(10-36 t) ~ 1064 c2 , from where t ~ 3 x 1024 years. That is, after the cooling of white dwarfs and neutron stars, but long before the collapse of the substance of the galaxy will gradually heat up. At this point, life in the uni¬verse will remain only at the level of extremophil bacteria. The model of Linde- Starobinsky with the Universe, which is eternally reproducing itself, with a lot of bloated quantum fluctuations into Friedmann's hot universes, as well as M-theory, do not leave room for eternal life in our Universe.

Conclusion
The development of nature is an ascent from the lowest to the highest. This means that humanity has not yet gained enough knowledge, both experimental data and existing theoretical models, each of which predicts the death of life in our Universe.

References
1. Banik I., Zhao H. Plane of high-speed galaxies in the entire Local group. 21.1.2017. Astrophysics of galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Cornell University Library.
2. A. A. Mushroom, S. G. Mamaev, V. M. Mostepanenko. Vacuum quantum effects in strong fields. - Moscow: Energoatomizdat, 1988, 288 p. ISBN 5-283-03955-2.
4. Zhou D., Casas-Basquez H., Lebon J. Expanded irreversible thermodynam¬ics. - Moscow-Izhevsk: 2006, ISBN 5-93972-569-4, 487 p.
5. Levantovsky V. I. Mechanics of space flight in elementary presentation. - Moscow: Nauka, 1970, 492 p.
6. The Milky Way turned out to be more than was thought. Popular mechanics. - Moscow, 2017, №11.
8. "Science and technology of the USSR in 1917-1987. Chronicle. - Moscow: Nauka, 1987, 185 p.245
9. Prigogine I. From the existing to the emerging. - Moscow: Nauka, 1985, 328 p.
10. The dimensions of the Milky Way are revised. Quazar.by 2013 http://quasar. by/news/razmery_mlechnogo_puti_peresmotreny/2015-03-13-196 (10/6/2018)
11. Shklovsky I.S. The Universe, life, mind. - Moscow: Nauka, 1987, 320 p.
13. Brady D. A. et al. Anomalous Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum. 50th AIAA / ASME / SAE / ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. American Institute of Aeronau¬tics and Astronautics. 2014
14. Cotta C., Morales A. A Computational Analysis of the Galactic Explora¬tion with Space Probes: Implications for the Fermi Paradox. Cornell University Library, submitted on Jul 2, 2009. https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0345
15. Khamehchi M. A., Hossain K., Mossman M. E. Zhang Y., Busch Th., Forbes M. M, Engels P. Negative mass hydrodynamics in a Spin-Orbit — Coupled Bose- Einstein Condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017. V. 118, P. 155301.
18. Lineweaver C. H., Davis T. M. Does this mean that it is common in the universe? Astrobiology, 2002, V. 2 (3). P. 293-304.
19. Marc G. Millis. The Challenge To Create The Space Drive, 1997, Journal of Propulsion and Power.
20. Millis M., Davis E. Frontiers of Propulsion Science, AIAA. Progress in As¬tronautics & Aeronautics. 2009. V. 227. ISBN 978-1563479564 ISBN 1563479567
21. Morris M., Thorne K., Yurtsever U. Wormholes, Time Machines, and the Weak Energy Condition. Phys. Rev. 1988, V. 61 (13), P. 1446-1449.
22. Russon, Mary-Ann. EmDrive: International Business Times UK (14 De¬cember 2016).246

ON THE PHYSICS PARADIGM

Introduction
In the modern paradigm on which physics is built, nothing arises from nothing, according to Lomonosov-Lavoisier, the law of conservation of energy is satisfied, any system tends to a minimum of potential energy, the entropy of a closed system increases.
In GTR there is no law of conservation of angular momentum, angular mo¬mentum can occur in a closed system. There is also no energy conservation law in the GTR, although perpetual motion is not possible within the GTR.
Obviously, this paradigm is built solely on local experimental material and does not have to take place globally or in the Planck era.
For example, since the Universe as a whole does not have heat transfer, its total entropy does not increase. The introduction of only the classical gravitational field violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (in the well-known problem of heating two balls, on a thread and on a stand, see [1]) already locally.
The rotation of the electron around the nucleus shows that cyclic processes are possible without dissipation and without moving to a minimum of potential energy.

The conservation of energy follows from the homogeneity of time, but time is homogeneous here and now, in the early Universe - not substantially homoge¬neous.
The space in the early Universe is essentially heterogeneous, therefore, the full impulse is not preserved.
Particle birth
Dirac suggested that the number of particles in the universe grows in propor¬tion to the square of time.
Indeed, if we evaluate the magnitude of the work of expanding the Universe that the vacuum has done, with the work against the forces of the gravitational field, the work of the vacuum is several orders of magnitude greater than the work of the forces of gravity, which implies that the version of the total energy of the Universe equal to zero is incorrect, and the expansion of the Universe constantly generates elementary particles [2].
Representing the Universe in the form of a ball, in the classical case, the work performed during the expansion of the Universe is calculated using a standard formula, but the Hubble potential Hdr/dt is added to the usual gravitational potential.

Let us take the average distance between galaxies of 2 Mpc (according to other sources - 0.7 Mpc). Let’s take the average mass m of the galaxy for 300 bil¬lion solar masses: 6 x 10 in 41 degree.
One square 2 х 2 Mpc contains one galaxy.
Radius of the universe is R – 7,4 x 10 in 26 degree m.
The area of one square is 0,36 x 10 in 34 degree.
Total surface density is 10 in 6 degree.
Sphere area is 0,68 x 10 in 54 degree.
(1)
If we assume that all the dark energy arose due to the expansion of the Uni¬verse, then its mass when estimating the 2nd term on the right side of the equation with r corresponding to the dimensions of the observed Universe is about 10 in 60 degree kg. The first term on the right side of the equation has a value that is several orders of magnitude smaller; the integration constants of the picture do not change.

Even if we will take into account the maximum masses, velocities and numbers of stars and galaxies, their "thermal" energy divided by the square of the speed of light is several orders of magnitude less than 10 in 60 degree kg.
Rubakov believes that an increase in dark energy with the expansion of the Universe does not violate the law of conservation of energy, since the negative energy of gravity increases [3].
However, in this case, all dark energy should be generated exclusively due to ordinary matter. Secondly, the nodes of the superclusters of galaxies are con¬densed, the Universe, expanding, is compressed in the nodes of the superclusters [4]. In general, the reverse process of the formation of galaxies, stars, clusters of galaxies, black holes according to this statement should lead to the disappearance of dark energy. It is known that in the modern Universe there is 5% less dark mat¬ter than it was in the era of recombination, which is explained by its decay.
In any case, the processes of formation of stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies and densifications of their nodes occur with a decrease in entropy, and its gravita¬tional energy decreases. From the above estimates, we see that the increase in the mass of the Universe is not compensated by the energy of gravity. This means that if the mechanism of energy (mass) is due to the work of antigravity, i.e. of expan¬sion exists, then in the Universe there are many "unaccounted for" elementary particles, the number of which grows as a result of expansion.
On the other hand, if, according to Linde, the fluctuations of the scalar field generated particles in the era of inflation, nothing prevents the scalar field from generating ordinary matter in the modern era.
Gorbunov and Rubakov believe that all dark matter was formed in the era of inflation [5].
It is fair to assume that the mass of each type of particle is acquired at sub¬stantially different values of the Hubble constant, with a sharp decrease at the end of inflation, the spectrum of particles arising from vacuum in the Hubble "field" should also change. In the modern era - for example, ultra-long-wave electromag¬netic radiation.
Calculations of the number of particle births in cosmology show that only a small number of them could appear from vacuum [6]. However, within the frame¬work of the gravitational vacuum hypothesis, all matter could appear due to the "flashing" of virtual plankones [7].
There are also attempts to explain the appearance of all matter due to the cre¬ation of particles [8, 9].
In [8], the density of the number of generated scalar particles was calculated, which coincides with the particle density obtained by Stanyukovich in the frame¬work of a qualitative model leading to the total number of particles in the universe.
In the framework of the closed model, the GTR considered a self-consistent account of the birth of fermions, it turned out that due to this birth up to 90% of all the substance of the Universe could be formed, however, with an extremely narrow choice of initial conditions [10]. This conclusion is modified for the scalar-tensor Brans – Dicke theory [9].
It is also argued that in the modern era the birth of particles is slow, in a first approximation, the number of particles is preserved [11, 12].
In all these models, we are talking about the plankon, gravitational, fermion vacuum and the birth of particles in the gravitational field.
Equation (1) refers to a cosmological vacuum that generates an expansion of the universe whose equation of state is E/V + p = 0. That is, the birth of particles does not occur in a gravitational field, not due to work against gravitational forces, but rather due to work of expansion, which is much orders of magnitude greater than work against gravitational forces.
At the same time, Dirac put forward a hypothesis according to which the gravi¬tational constant decreases inversely with time.
A change in other fundamental constants with time is considered in [13]. These changes are excluded by the available experimental data [14] At the same time, in the case of a conformal scalar field without interaction in the quasi-Euclidean model, the effective gravitational coupling varies [15].
Obviously, an increase in the number of particles does not mean energy conser¬vation. A change in gravitational constant over time also leads to non-conservation of gravitational energy:

E = kGmm/r
k = 0,6 (n + 3)(2n + 11)/(n + 5)/(2n + 5)

k – numerical factor determin¬ing the distribution of matter within an object. Minimum value k = 0.6 and mini-mal work take place for n;;. At n = 1 is the factor of k = 0.743. Maximum value k = 0.792 is observed for n;0, that is, for the case of giant gas nebulae.

The potential energy of interparticle gravitational interaction also changes.
Locally, this non-conservation of energy is impossible to measure and it has no physical meaning, but it is necessary for constructing cosmological models.

Relict radiation
Does another physics appear, i.e. physics of the early universe and physics of the global universe locally?
The relict radiation predicted by Gamow appears during the hot phase of the evolution of the universe, high temperature breaks the chain of nuclear reactions leading to the formation of helium.
According to Gamow, the temperature of cosmic radiation is about 3 K [16].
In 1955, Tigran Shmaonov experimentally discovered noise microwave radia¬tion with a temperature of about 3 K. In 1964, A. Penzias and R. Wilson discov¬ered the cosmic background of radiation and measured its temperature - 3 K. It would seem that this confirmed Gamow's theory.
Consider the Fulling - Unruh effect.
The temperature of the observed Unruh radiation is expressed by the same formula as the temperature of Hawking radiation, but does not depend on surface gravity, but on the acceleration of the reference frame a:
We estimate the energy of the Unruh photon on Earth, based on a constant estimate of the Hubble order 10 in (-18) degree? So Unruh energy is ~ 10 in (-52) degrees.
Accordingly, the Unruh radiation temperature is of the order of 10 in (-30) degree K.

We estimate the energy of the relict radiation: hw ~ 10 in (-22) degree.
By virtue of the principle of relativity, the Milky Way - exactly the same galaxy as the rest - it also moves away with acceleration from other galaxies. In this case, the Milky Way must be penetrated by radiation.
By the principle of relativity, at any point in the Universe, the radiation tem¬perature of Unruh is the same. All galaxies located at distances less than the radius of the Universe give a smaller energy contribution to Unruh radiation.
The difference between the energy of the relict photon exceeds the energy of the Unru photon by 30 orders of magnitude. Could this be?
The temperature of the gas mixture should be determined by the formulas [17]. That is, due to the inverse Compton effect indicated by Zeldovich, the energy of relict photons should increase, and in billions of years the temperature of the relict gas should be equal to the temperature of interstellar space of 4 K. Unruh has no billions of years of photon gas, it occurs every second, the inverse of Compton scattering allows it to approach only 2.7 K. Therefore, it can be assumed that the measured relic radiation is in fact the Unruh radiation, while the relic ra¬diation has a temperature of 4 K.
In any case, heating, although by a vanishingly small value on the temperature scale, means a violation of the law of conservation of energy, a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.
Conclusion
Probably, the moments of the local paradigm can be transferred to the field of physics in the early Universe and the global Universe, namely:
1) the ideology of symmetries, 2) the concept of the cycle (cyclical processes), 3) the concept of irreversible qualitative changes, regression as a moment of de¬velopment (minimum action, dissipation, increase in entropy), 4) the concept of development as an ascent from lower to higher, from simple to complex, more¬over, not only in the form of increasing the number of elements of systems, but complicating their structure, turning potential qualities into relevant ones, 5) the ideology of contradiction as a source of movement.

References
1. Palma G., Normale S., Sormani M. C., Peierls R. Counterintuitive effect of gravity on the heat capacity of a metal sphere: re-examination of a well-known problem. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01337.pdf
2. Ikhlov B. L. Inconsistent Universe. Materials of the International Confer¬ence “Process Management and Scientific Developments” (Birmingham, United Kingdom, March 31, 2020. ISBN 978-5-905695-91-9
http://naukarus.ru/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2020/ PMSD March-.pdf#page=118
DOI http://www.doi.org/10.34660/INF.2020.7.58917
3. Rubakov V., Stern B. The scale line of the Universe // TrV-Science №83 of 07.19.2011.
4. Sokurov V.F. Massam Universe // International Journal of Ap¬plied and Fundamental Research. – 2015. – № 12-10. – P. 1774-1777; URL: https://applied-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=8378 (appeal date: 06.03.2020).
5. Gorbunov D.S., Rubakov V.A. Introduction to the theory of the early Uni¬verse. M.: LKI. 2008. P. 34.
6. Grib A. A., Mamaev S. G., Mostepanenko V. M. Quantum effects in intense external fields. M., Atomizdat, 1980.
7. Stanyukovich K.P., Melnikov V.N. Hydrodynamics, fields, constants in the theory of gravity. M.: Energoatomizdat,1983. 256 P.
8. Barabanenkov Yu. N., Melnikov V.N., Stanyukovich K.P. Proceedings of the Institute of Physics of the AS. BSSR, 1979.
9. Obregon O. S., Pimental L. O. Gen. Relat. Grav., 1978, V. 9. P. 585.
10. Schafer G., Dehnen H. Astron. Astrophys. 1977, V. 54. P. 823.
11. Melnikov V.N., Reshetov V.A. Abstracts of the VIII All-Union conference on the theory of elementary particles in Uzhgorod. Kiev, ed. ITF AS USSR, 1971.
12. Drum Yu.N., Melnikov V.N. In book. PTH and EC, issue 8. M., Atomizdat, 1977.
13. Kalinin M.I., Melnikov V.N. Problems of the theory of gravity and elemen¬tary particles. M.: Atomizdat, 1975, issue 6. P. 70.
14. Melnikov V.N., Stanyukovich K.P. Problems of the theory of gravity and elementary particles. M., Atomizdat, 1978, issue 9. P. 3.
15. Melnikov V.N. Conformal scalar field, gravity, vacuum and cosmology. Gravity and the theory of relativity. KSU, 1980, issue 17. P. 71-80.
16. Gamov G.A. Physics Today, 1950. №8, P. 76.
17. Ikhlov B. L. Thermodynamic approach in cosmology. Eurasian scientific journal. 2019. №1.

STRATEGIES OF GEROMTOLOGY
THE CURE FOR DEATH. Part IV

Introduction

The usual methods of prolonging of life are well known: no smoking, no excessive alcohol consumption, exercise, sleep patterns, less sugar and salt, less baking, generally less fast carbohydrates, introduce green tea, porcini mushrooms, olive oil, no adulterated and genetically modified foods, etc. However, do not forget that nutrition should not only be balanced, but also correspond to a lifestyle. Thus, Abkhazian centenarians in the middle of the twentieth century moved a lot, worked, consumed either a little or up to 3 liters of grape wine per day, ate exclusively ecological food, and breathed clean air. At that time, at least three residents of Abkhazia exceeded the maximum age set in the world of 120 years, one died at 127 years old, another at 130 years old, the third at 132 years old. Currently, centenarians in Abkhazia have disappeared, which is primarily due to stress (the war with Georgia). At the same time, Jeanne Louise Kalman smoked, drank port wine, ate a lot of sweets, especially chocolate, was constantly stressed, starred in films at the age of 114, lived 122 years and 164 days. Boutli Lamishnein was born in 1903, smoked her first cigarette (from unprocessed tobacco) at the age of 17 and has continued to smoke ever since. Brooke Greenberg – does not age at all. This is a girl the size of a baby and with the mental capacity of a toddler from Baltimore, USA, she is over 20 years old. There are no explanations for these phenomena.

Obviously, in the future, the main directions of gerontology will be related to the mechanism of cell differentiation, the prevention of the decline of stem cells in the body with age, the ability to regenerate associated with the immune system, as well as the mechanisms of self-repair of macromolecules associated with exposure to electromagnetic background, ranging from gamma rays (radiation) and ending with almost constant magnetic (several hertz) and electric fields of the Earth, the amplitude and frequency of which slowly changed over time. At a certain point in evolution, starting with the chordates, due to the lack of sufficient resources, living organisms lost some of their regenerative abilities, for example, the ability to regenerate limbs more complex than the tail of a lizard or the claw of a cancer. At the same time, with injuries, the cells of the human body acquired the ability to take over the functions of lost cells, for example, there were cases when, with the loss of one hemisphere of the brain, its functions were taken over by the second hemisphere. Moreover, since thinking is a somatic process, there are mutants in which the functions of the entire brain in the absence of both hemispheres have been taken over by the rest of the body. On the other hand, an increase in life expectancy is associated with a slowdown in metabolism and anabolism, which not only prevents it from moving as quickly as a predator or its prey, but also slows down regeneration. So far, medical means have succeeded in regenerating the nail phalanges of the fingers (L. Polezhaev, 1974), whereas a tapeworm divided into 200,000 parts recreates 200,000 other tapeworms, a whole starfish is regenerated from a single starfish ray, and a newt is able to regenerate eyes. During regeneration, the body of these animals "remembers" its embryonic past, including a genetic program that activates the so-called Dox genes.

There are many versions of aging by Paracelsus, Rubner, Loeb, Buchli, Mechnikov, Pavlov, Muhlmann, Parkhon, Brown-Sekara, etc., the theory of aging due to accumulation of mutations by L. Szilard (1954), the theory of accumulation of cellular debris by D. Harmen, the theory of antagonistic pleiotropy by Williams (1957), the theory of aging from crosslinking between protein molecules J. Berksten, Takashi Makinodian's version of autoimmune aging (1969), see [1-3]. One way or another, a systematic approach to the problem of prolonging life and youth has not been developed to date. The difficulties in the systematics of gerontology are related to the fact that a person is an open system, an individual is not a separate, but a socio-biological substance. This leads to variability in the definition of command nodes of the body in terms of gerontology. To approach the problem, it is necessary to classify the approaches that exist in the topics of adaptation of organisms, in the theory of vitaucta, in gerontology and in radiobiology. Let's modify the systematics of gerontology at the level of its current state, which will allow us to isolate and combine some complex approaches in gerontology, the theory of life sciences and radiobiology.

Taxonomy

The movement of biological and social matter is evolutionary (with internal contradictions) and with qualitative progressive transitions, the moment of which is regression. The biological form differs from the prebiological one in that entropy decreases in the cell due to external sources of energy and "internal anxiety" (according to Hegel). With age, the ability to organize and complicate the body is lost. Immortality or longevity of some organisms is not a goal, such as slowing down metabolism or unlimited growth without any development. Anyway, aging and aging are two opposite moments in the development of biological matter, they are not limited to adaptation. Adaptation mechanisms can be divided into static and dynamic ones. Static ones include, for example, the ability of hyperthermophilic bacteria to divide at temperatures of 80-120 degrees Celsius. Dynamic ones include the ability to survive under sudden changes in conditions: with sharply increased radiation, when placed in a vacuum, or when cooled to the temperature of outer space.

The classification of gerontology directions is of particular importance. At the time of the emergence of gerontology, it was associated with the treatment of senile patients, respectively, its areas were gerontopsychology, which studied the psychological and behavioral characteristics of elderly and elderly people, geriatrics - the study of diseases associated with involutional changes, as well as the treatment and prevention of diseases in the elderly and senile, gerohygen, which studied issues of general and special hygiene for people of older age groups. In recent decades, the science of slowing down aging and rejuvenating organisms has been developing.
1) Natural (hormones, vitamins) and synthetic substances are proposed as geroprotectors. According to the mechanism of action, they are divided into antioxidants, metabolic regulators, regulators of signaling pathways, senolytics (selectively initiate the death of aged cells), CR-mimetics (create changes in cell metabolism, simulating calorie restriction), and peptide preparations.
2) Another area is gene therapy, life-prolonging mutations, the third includes cloning and organ replacement and cryopreservation.
3) The fourth area includes injections of various stem cells.
The increased activity of the RhoGTPaseCdc42 protein causes blood stem cells to age faster. In experiments on mice, it was shown that slowing down the activity of this protein leads to the reorganization and subsequent sustained rejuvenation of blood stem cells. Thus, the aging process can be made reversible at this point (Hartmut Geiger, 2014). However, this rejuvenation procedure has as yet unexplored consequences, it is also used to treat certain diseases, but it can generate malignant neoplasms.
The research areas are divided into two areas: the study of the causes of aging and the search for ways to prolong life and rejuvenate.
The causes of aging include internal and external. The external causes of aging include external ones: natural (radiophone, temperature and pressure fluctuations, disasters, etc.) and artificial (air pollution, including radio radiation, water, the spread of microbes, adulterated food, stress, wars, production). For example, A. S. Presman associated acceleration, which leads to a reduction in life expectancy, with the spread of radio [4, 5]. The GSM-1900 frequency range of mobile communications at one of the upper limits (1.91 GHz) exactly matches (turns out to be resonant) the natural frequency of torsional vibrations of the DNA helix of the 1st chromosome [6]. Internal causes operate at the molecular, cellular, physiological, and population levels.

The molecular level is the breakdown of proteins, changes in the concentration of hydrogen ions, etc. Separately, there are changes in the genome: a certain aging program, apoptosis, telomere shortening, accumulation of uncorrected damage in DNA (L. Orgel, 1963), etc., in particular, due to exposure to oxygen free radicals (SR). By old age, the rate of DNA self-repair decreases; in the cells of old animals, DNA damaged by X-ray or ultraviolet radiation is repaired more slowly.
At the cellular level, aging occurs in the cell nucleus, mitochondria, and enoplasmic reticulum due to hypoxia, due to the action of CP, peptide peroxide, xenobiotics, aldehydes, changes in the concentration of hydrogen ions, accumulation of peptide residues, activation of phospholipases, the appearance of proteins that damage the cell, the rupture of lysosomes with active proteolytic enzymes, changes in the microsomal system with age. oxidation, stability of membranes, microtubules. In addition, the cells develop various diseases, inflammations, etc.
At the physiological level, aging is associated with the separation of different parts of biological systems in time and space. Some cells die, organs physically wear out, etc.
Accordingly, prolongation or limitation of human life occurs due to two types of impact: external and internal.

1. External causes Due to external causes, cooking meat on fire and switching to cereal and vegetable foods, further due to the introduction of environmental (including workplace, for example, hoods) and hygienic measures at the beginning of the twentieth century, the introduction of vaccination, the use of antibiotics, nutrition programs, etc. the life expectancy of Homo sapiens increased by 5 once since the average age of 15.
2. Internal causes The internal mechanism of increasing life expectancy determines the phenomenon of vytautage. Frolkis V. V. (1969), Vanyushin B.F., Berdyshev G.D. (1977) put forward the gene regulatory hypothesis of aging, according to which the primary mechanisms of aging are associated with changes in the regulation of gene activity, regulation of their expression and repression, and also put forward the theory of vitaucta (vita - life, auctum – prolong, lengthen) that It is shown that in the course of evolution, along with the aging processes, the mechanism of active anti-aging works [7]. The phenomenon of vytautah clarifies the understanding of evolution as not only an adaptive process, but as an ascent from the lowest to the highest, from simple to complex.

Vitaut is a regulatory process, beyond the concepts of hylozism, the "natural heat" of Hippocrates–Aristotle, vitalism or Freudian schemes with libido. The genotypic manifestations of vitaucta depend on the functioning of the genome, for example, DNA self-repair. The phenotypic mechanisms of vitaucta are realized during the vital activity of organisms. They are represented at the molecular, cellular, physiological, population, and social levels. Vitauct counteracts the extinction of anabolism and metabolism (metabolism) and changes in individual organ functions, contribute to their preservation or resist their abrupt change. One of the mechanisms of vitaucta is the antihypoxic system. Vitaut acts on 3 levels: population, physiological and molecular (genome). For Homo sapiens, the first level in terms of competition for food sources and reproduction was transformed into a population-social one. On the one hand, claws, eyesight, muscles, teeth were atrophied, on the other hand, as the demographic analysis of the PRC shows, when, for example, the birth rate increases, the average life expectancy decreases.

Disadvantages of the previous classification

In general, all aspects of external life expectancy management are included in the field of gerontology studies. In previous conceptions, social gerontology (E. Stiglitz, 1940) is designed to solve demographic, socio-economic problems of aging, but the socio-economic aspect is understood one-sidedly, in an outdated form. Areas of social gerontology include the study of the influence of old age on personality, on changes in values, human needs, behavior and lifestyle in old age, the study of the position of an elderly person in a group, interaction in a family, team, with friends, as well as the study of the specifics of groups consisting of older people, the study of older people in society as a whole.. The elderly are considered as a certain demographic community and it (the community) influences social processes and is itself influenced by social processes; the study of the effect of various medications on certain body functions in different age groups, which allows prescribing medications to the elderly based on a number of important factors.
However, it is clear that production relations, subordination relations determined by the content (division) of labor, and the content of labor itself have a decisive influence on life expectancy. Thus, life expectancy increases significantly among those engaged in highly intellectual work and sharply decreases among those employed in harmful (list No. 1) and heavy or monotonous industries. As Mark Twain said, "I understand that mental work also causes sweat. But for all the blessings in the world, I won't agree to wave a kyle for at least a month."
In addition, it turns out that gerontology can use radiobiology methods. There are several strategies for protecting the body from radiation: protection at the physiological level, at the cellular level, and protection of DNA. In terms of gerontology, it is known that short-term exposure increases life expectancy (on the contrary, a decrease in background radiation leads to a reduction in life expectancy). The mechanism of this phenomenon is at the molecular level, at the genome level, which is due to the fact that the DNA self–repair system evolved under conditions of harsh radiation in the absence of an atmosphere.

At the physiological level, it has been established that, for example, exposure of the hypothalamus of rats to electromagnetic vibrations with a frequency of several kilohertz increases their life expectancy [8]. In the early 1950s, V. M. Dilman put forward and substantiated the idea of the existence of a single regulatory mechanism that determines the patterns of age-related changes in various homeostatic systems of the body, the main link in the mechanisms of development and aging of the body is the hypothalamus – the "conductor" of the endocrine system. The main cause of aging is an age–related decrease in the sensitivity of the hypothalamus to regulatory signals coming from the nervous system and endocrine glands. It was found that this process leads to age-related changes in the functions of the reproductive system and the hypothalamic-pituitary–adrenal system, which provides the necessary level of glucocorticoids produced by the adrenal cortex - "stress hormones", daily fluctuations in their concentration and increased secretion under stress, and, ultimately, to the development of a state of so-called "hyperadaptosis". In those countries that were the first to widely introduce mobile communications (Norway, etc.) in those years when this was happening, the average life expectancy increased. It is possible that this external factor manifests itself at the molecular level. Exactly.

Mobile communication frequencies below or above the resonant ones can also cause torsional vibrations of parts of DNA, which probably leads to the expression of certain genes, causing an increase in life expectancy. Therefore, it is necessary to reformulate the directions in gerontology: geriatrics (getting rid of diseases associated with aging), gerohygienology, gerontopsychology, functional gerontology and sociogerontology that have not yet been developed (sometimes it is included in gerontopsychology) and molecular gerontology. Thus, the field of gerontological research captures the social, population, physiological, cellular and molecular levels.

Population level

Methods of gerontology at the physiological level traditionally include sports activities, a healthy lifestyle, etc. At the cellular level, for example, the use of alpha-ketoglutaric acid (AKG) supplements is proposed. After 40 years, the AKG content in the human body is reduced tenfold. In experiments with mice, the females improved their health 9 months after the start of taking the dietary supplement, while the males showed a positive effect 11 months later. During the entire 33-month experiment, the mice showed no signs of aging, such as loss of skin color, impaired coordination of movements, and hearing loss. The life span of a population depends on its size. Ferhulst's law (modified Malthus's law, logistic equation)
dN/dt = rN(1-N/K)
(N is the population size, r is the Malthusian reproduction coefficient, K is the coefficient characterizing the supporting capacity of the medium, the maximum possible population size) shows reaching a plateau with an unlimited power source, but there is an assumption that each biological population has a limited life span, regardless of the availability of nutrition. However, this assumption is most likely incorrect in view of the adaptive and developmental mechanisms described by the synthetic theory of evolution and immune mechanisms that increase the life expectancy of a population.

A mathematical model for describing the aging of multiple organisms, among other models, is the Gompertz-Makeham (GM) mortality law, the probability of death increases exponentially with age:
p = a + bx,
where x is age, p is the relative probability of death over a certain period of time, and a and b are coefficients. At a = 0, the population size decreases with age by a double exponent
s(x) = exp(-m(bx – 1)]
In the field of young people, mortality is significantly higher than according to the GM law. For example, northern cod can lay up to 6 million eggs during spawning, but only a small number of them survive to puberty. In the field of late age, on the contrary, there is a decrease in mortality compared to the GM law - the output of the probability of death per unit of time to a plateau.

As is clear from the previous material, the main problem at the population level is not a decrease in the birth rate due to the threat of limited food sources, but the elimination of the dominance of abstract content in labor, i.e. the transfer of monotonous, impersonal, diverse, creative work.
And for this, a socialist revolution is needed.

The molecular level. The genome. Strategies

In molecular gerontology, we will single out the occurrence of defects in macromolecules from all phenomenology, and DNA from all macromolecules. Thus, the CP theory is selected from the models of aging, and within it there is a model of accumulation of errors in DNA. The first, molecular level of anti-aging vitaukt is associated with DNA replication and self-repair. About a hundred thousand violations occur in DNA every second, and at some points it increases to a million. The self-repair system eliminates almost all the defects that have formed, but not all.
A number of studies have established a positive correlation between the lifespan of a fork and the rate of DNA repair damaged by ultraviolet light or ionizing radiation [9, 10].
With age, the effectiveness of the self-treatment system decreases. A key role in the recovery process is played by the NAD+ metabolite, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, whose concentration decreases with age for unknown reasons. It is present in every cell of the body and regulates the interaction of proteins, which is responsible for DNA repair. The NMN drug based on NAD+ was injected into mice, which increased the ability of cells to repair DNA after damage [11].
1) During replication, telomeres at the ends of DNA are lost, DNA is shortened. Thus, for those cells of the body (non-somatic) that divide (skin cells, intestinal epithelium), the number of divisions is limited to 52 divisions (Hayflick limit). In some organisms, due to vitaut, the telomerase enzyme is expressed in cells, which restores telomeres at the ends of DNA. If telomerase were expressed in the cells of the human body, it would be possible to increase life expectancy to 200 years. There are developments aimed at artificially expressing telomerase in human cells by introducing sirtuin proteins. This is the first strategy in the theory of accumulation of errors in DNA.

However, it should be remembered here that cell death is an evolutionary phenomenon that has arisen in multicellular organisms, in order to prevent its endless proliferation, called apoptosis. "listopad") – the process of programmed cell death (J. Kerr, E. Wiley, A. Kerry, 1972). Although one of the main functions of apoptosis is the destruction of defective (damaged, mutant, infected) cells. Organisms with extensive defects caused by apoptosis disorders die even in the early stages of ontogenesis. Pathological processes develop in the case of suppression or enhancement of apoptosis. In the body of the average adult, about 50-70 billion people die as a result of apoptosis. cells per day. For the average child aged 8-14 years, the number of cells killed by apoptosis is 20-30 billion. in the day. The total mass of cells that undergo destruction during 1 year of life is equivalent to the mass of a human body. Replacement of lost cells is provided by proliferation (increasing the cell population by division). Again, in order to limit the endless expansion of the population, the mechanism of apoptosis works in all eukaryotes, starting with protozoa, and even in prokaryotes. The search for ways to disable the mechanism of apoptosis is focused, in particular, on inhibitors of apoptosis proteins. Since the late 90s, attempts have been made to model apoptosis, which lead to a system of complex integro-differential equations, but so far there has been no success in this direction.

2) The second strategy in the field of gerontology, which is related to the 1st molecular level and, specifically, to DNA protection, is the introduction of specific cations into the mitochondria, which contribute to the healing of damage in mitochondrial DNA. The Skulachev Gerontological Center is engaged in this strategy. However, the introduction of charged particles itself is unsafe, on the other hand, the binding of oxygen free radicals leads to hypoxia, and the generation of free radicals decreases with age.
3) The third strategy is to use a number of low molecular weight peptides that express certain DNA genes (Havinson Center). This strategy has caused a lot of speculation of an anti-scientific nature (the so-called "indigo children"). However, the accumulation of peptide residues and peptide peroxide accelerates aging; on the other hand, a decrease in the intensity of the genome slows down the rate of age-related changes, and vice versa.

4) An attempt to use substances that bind oxygen CP leads to the fact that the cell itself begins to produce oxygen CP, necessary for metabolism. Therefore, the strategy of direct protection of DNA after its attack with oxygen is more effective. Antioxidants are used to implement this strategy, but it turns out that, for example, vitamin C or alpha-tocopherol are useless. That is, specific antioxidants are needed to interact with DNA. The fourth strategy that we propose is fundamentally new, it involves the use of radioprotectors, which were previously used to protect both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA from radiation damage, as geroprotectors. Moreover, in this strategy of radiobiology, we define such radioprotectors, whose electronic level systems are integrated into the DNA electronic level system in a special way. DNA is considered as a quasi-crystal, and when defects occur, the probability of radioprotectors (antioxidants) selected in this way to donate an electron to the DNA molecule is highest. The use of the 4th strategy makes it possible to increase the survival rate of irradiated mice by 50-80% [12].
It was found that selenorotoic acid is the most effective radioprotector and thiorothylglycine is even more effective. However, all these substances are extremely toxic, so they can only be used in microdoses as geroprotectors. Resveratrol, which is used on submarines (it is found in red wine), is also an effective radioprotector. However, resveratrol is unstable, so its stable modification, vaticanol–C, is used. The idea also arose of using simultaneous administration of selenium and orotic acid into the body, i.e. a combination of selenium and hypovitamin. Previously, selenium was combined with vitamin E in medicine. Experiments on the effects of the selenium–orotic acid complex were conducted with 15 patients. There was a significant increase in the rate of tissue regeneration and an increase in tone.

It is worth pointing out that an increase in the level of p53 protein in response to DNA damage causes apoptosis, for example, in skin cells, in thymocytes, and in intestinal epithelial cells.

Conclusion

The idea of this method in the chosen strategy in radiobiology (DNA protection) belongs to me and Alexander Filaretov, with whom we worked together in the Laboratory of Radiobiology at the YENI PSU. The corresponding article was sent to the press, passed an expert examination, the act of which No. 110 dated 6.4.1984 was signed by Chairman B. P. Kovtun, Candidate of Chemical Sciences M. I. Degtev, Candidate of Biological Sciences E. L. Izmozherova, Chairman of the patent department A. A. Honorina, from ONTI – N. A. Ponomareva, head of the 1st department L. P. Serebrennikova. However, this article was not published, the publication was prevented by the head of the Laboratory of Radiobiology, A. N. Izmozherov, since the article actually refuted his already defended doctoral thesis. Further development of the topic was slowed down due to the KGB–FSB ban on the profession of this author of the article, and it was possible to return to it only in 2015. Currently, A. Filaretov has passed away due to a progressive illness, Izmailov emigrated to Israel and also died. The idea of using radioprotectors in gerontology and replacing them with dietary supplements belongs to the author of this article.
As you can see, the causes and mechanisms mentioned above are intertwined in a complex way. Obviously, the most effective use of all four strategies is combined with the use of EMF at the physiological level.
All 4 strategies have been implemented in the body of immortal animals such as sea bass, pearl oystercatcher or tardigrade, and cell growth is balanced, increasing the weight of sea bass does not allow it to compete for food sources with younger individuals, and the adaptive factor of natural selection is quite sufficient to limit the population of immortal organisms.
The pearl oyster margaritifera can produce up to 6 million embryos after 200 years of life, while 30-year–old pearl oysters can produce only 1 million. The death of this mollusk occurs because its shell grows to such an extent that the pearl oyster is unable to move and starves to death. In old age, pearl oystercatchers can go without oxygen for a month, while young individuals may not breathe for only a week. Parasitizing salmon, pearl oyster injects substances into his blood that stabilize his hormonal and immune systems, which prolongs his life several times.

Extra-long-lived substances easily neutralize gene mutations, oxidants (reactive oxygen species), telomere shortening, DNA methylation, protein and DNA glycosylation, genome instability, hormonal imbalance, carcinogenesis, and the harmful effects of stressors. Ageless vertebrates (fish, reptiles) do not show such changes characteristic of mammals with age as arthritis, hormonal chaos, menopause, osteoporosis, vascular disorders, tooth erasure, lens cataracts, accumulation of lipofuscin in cells and intercellular collagen [13]. All ageless ones have an exceptional ability to regenerate. Some animals are able to survive in space, in a chemically active environment, with extremely high levels of radiation, and their DNA is able to recover after rupture. Thus, modern evolution itself brings a person closer to a life expectancy of about 500-1000 years. Without a doubt, this will lead to a decrease in the birth rate. The fact is that vitaukt and the methods of gerontology are in contradiction with the direction of the transitions of the forms of motion of matter to the biological form, the most important feature of which is self-reproduction. But it is possible to rid evolution of the factors that hinder it.

There are four aspects that need to be noted here. Sooner or later, the ultimate regeneration ability will be reached.
Secondly, it is obvious that an increase in life expectancy depends on many factors, age, physical characteristics (height, weight, etc.), race, gender, climate, radiophone, water and air quality, the nature of work, past illnesses, including hereditary, etc. Accordingly, genome certification is necessary to develop a therapeutic complex. Let's say 106 people live in the region, the number of sets of chromosomes is 23, the number of cells in the body is 1014, 7 x 1010 cells are updated daily, 105 die from brain cells daily. There are 4 types of tissues in the human body, each of them is differentiated, the number of pairs of nucleotides in human DNA ranges from 0.5 x 107 to 2.5 x 108. It is estimated that, for example, it will take about 3-4 days for the most powerful Chinese supercomputer to calculate the frequencies of DNA conformational fluctuations at a speed of 1015 operations per second, for a speed of 1018 ops/sec. – accordingly, up to 1 hour.
Thirdly, of course, the removal of the "current" contradiction of the evolutionary process [14] will lead to its unfolding in a new form. Further changes in human life expectancy will be affected by evolutionary and revolutionary processes in the biological and social forms of matter movement. It is generally accepted that the social form of the movement of matter is the highest, the development of which ends in the communist phase. Which, of course, cannot be true, since the source of development – contradiction - does not disappear. In attempts to imagine what lies behind the social form, only future trends towards universalization, possibly sexual, are obvious, but not in terms of hermaphroditism, but according to Berdyaev, i.e. with the isolation of rarely self-reproducing individuals, as well as programming the narrowing and expansion of the population.

On the other hand, during the transition of mankind to the 2nd level of development of civilizations on the Kardashev scale, the cosmological factor will become decisive. Due to the lack of empirical material, the last two aspects cannot be relevant and scientific, with the exception of the topic of CETI [15], which, like the development of concepts of biological evolution, is beyond the scope of the article.

References

1. Anisimov V.N. Evolution of concepts in gerontology, 1999.
2. Anisimov V.N. Molecular and physiological mechanisms of aging, 2003.
3. Gilbert S. Developmental Biology, 1995.
4. Presman A. S. Electromagnetic fields and wildlife. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. 288 p .
5. Presman A. S. Electromagnetic signaling in wildlife. Moscow: Soviet Radio, 1974. 64 p.
6. Ikhlov B.L. INFRASOUND, MICROWAVES AND DISEASE PREVENTION // Modern problems of science and education. – 2017. – № 2; URL: http://www.science-education.ru/article/view?id=26194
(date of reference: 03/16/2017).
7. Frolkis V. V., Muradian H. K. Experimental ways of prolonging life. L.: Nauka, 1988. 248 p.
8. Kholodov Yu. A. The brain in electromagnetic fields. Moscow: Nauka, 1983. 30 p.
9. Anisimov V.N. Carcinogenesis and aging. Vol. 1 and 2- Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1987. 165 p.; 148 p.
10. Likhachev A.Yu. The influence of age on DNA repair in connection with carcinogenesis // Cancer and aging / A. Maceira-Coelho, B. Nordenskiold, edited by A.Yu. Likhachev.- Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1990. pp. 97-108.
11. Armor, Senior Lieutenant, Bennett, Junior Lieutenant, Brown, Senior Lieutenant, Zhang, Senior Lieutenant, McMahon, Senior Lieutenant, Gigi, Senior Lieutenant, Harper, Junior Lieutenant, Sinclair, Senior Lieutenant. The interaction map identifies SIRT1 with a high degree of confidence as a mediator of acetylation of USP22 and the SAGA coactivator complex. Molecular and cellular biology, 2013, 33(8):1487-502. PMID: 23382074.
12. Ikhlov B. L. The use of radioprotectors in gerontology. BULLETIN OF NEW MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES – 2018 – VOL. 25, NO. 3 – PP. 2029-215.
13. Boyko A. G. On the way to immortality. Studies on the four evolutionary echelons of aging. 2007. Moscow: Belye Alva.383 p .
14. Grigoriev A. B. Dialectical contradiction of the evolutionary process. Abstract of the Candidate of Philology. sciences'. Moscow State University, 1989.
15. Ikhlov B. L. Life in the Universe. Scientific research of the SCO countries. Part 1. China, 2018. December 12. pp. 236-245.

Список читателей / Версия для печати / Разместить анонс / Заявить о нарушении

Другие произведения автора Борис Ихлов

Рецензии

Написать рецензию

Другие произведения автора Борис Ихлов

Мы используем файлы cookie для улучшения работы сайта. Оставаясь на сайте, вы соглашаетесь с условиями использования файлов cookies. Чтобы ознакомиться с Политикой обработки персональных данных и файлов cookie, нажмите здесь.